__________________________________________________________________
Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3: Brownson-Clairvaux
Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916)
Print Basis: 1907-1913
Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by
permission
CCEL Subjects: All; Reference
LC Call no: BX841.C286
LC Subjects:
Christian Denominations
Roman Catholic Church
Dictionaries. Encyclopedias
__________________________________________________________________
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE
ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE,
DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
EDITED BY
CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D.
EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D.
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J.
ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS
IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES
VOLUME 3
Brownson-Clairvaux
New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY
Imprimatur
JOHN M. FARLEY
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________________________
Orestes Augustus Brownson
Orestes Augustus Brownson
Philosopher, essayist, reviewer, b. at Stockbridge, Vermont,
U.S.A., 16 September, 1803; d. at Detroit, Michigan, 17 April,
1876.
His childhood was passed on a small farm with plain country
people, honest and upright Congregationalists, who treated him
with kindness and affection, taught him the Lord's Prayer, the
Apostles' Creed, and the Assembly's Catechism; to be honest and
industrious, truthful in all circumstances, and never to let the
sun go down on his wrath. With no young companions, his fondness
for reading grew rapidly, though he had access to few books, and
those of a grave or religious nature. At the age of nineteen he
had a fair knowledge of grammar and arithmetic and could
translate Virgil's poetry. In October, 1822, he joined the
Presbyterian Church, dreamed of becoming a missionary, but very
soon felt repelled by Presbyterian discipline, and still more by
the doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation, and
that God foreordains the wicked to sin necessarily, that He may
damn them justly. Rather than sacrifice his belief in justice
and humanity on the altar of a religion confessedly of human
origin and fallible in its teachings, Brownson rejected
Calvinism for so-called liberal Christianity, and early in 1824,
at the age of twenty, avowed himself a Universalist. In June,
1826, he was ordained, and from that time until near the end of
1829, he preached and wrote as a Universalist minister, calling
himself a Christian; but at last denying all Divine revelation,
the Divinity of Christ, and a future judgment, he abandoned the
ministry and became associated with Robert Dale Owen and Fanny
Wright in their war on marriage, property, and religion, carried
on in the "Free Enquirer" of New York, of which Brownson, then
at Auburn, became corresponding editor. At the same time he
established a journal in western New York in the interest of the
Workingmen's Party, which they wished to use for securing the
adoption of their system of education. But, besides this motive,
Brownson's sympathy was always with the labouring class, and he
entered with ardour on the work of elevating labour, making it
respected and as well rewarded in its manual or servile, as in
its mercantile or liberal, phases, and the end he aimed at was
moral and social amelioration and equality, rather than
political. The introduction of large industries carried on by
means of vast outlays of capital or credit had reduced
operatives to the condition of virtual slavery; but Brownson
soon became satisfied that the remedy was not to be secured by
arraying labour against capital by a political organization, but
by inducing all classes to co-operate in the efforts to procure
the improvement of the workingman's condition. He found, too,
that he could not advance a single step in this direction
without religion. An unbeliever in Christianity, he embraced the
religion of Humanity, severed his connexion with the
Workingmen's Party and with "The Free Enquirer", and on the
first Sunday in February, 1831, began preaching in Ithaca, New
York, as an independent minister. As a Universalist, he had
edited their organ, "The Gospel Advocate"; he now edited and
published his own organ, "The Philanthropist".
Finding, from Dr. W. E. Channing's printed sermons, that
Unitarians believed no more of Christianity than he did, he
became associated with that denomination, and so remained for
the next twelve years. In 1832 he was settled as pastor of the
Unitarian Church at Walpole, New Hampshire; in 1834 he was
installed pastor of the First Congregational Church at Canton,
Massachusetts; and in 1836 he organized in Boston "The Society
for Christian Union and Progress", to which he preached in the
Old Masonic Temple, in Tremont Street. After conducting various
periodicals, and contributing to others, the most important of
which was "The Christian Examiner", he started a publication of
his own called "The Boston Quarterly Review", the first number
of which was dated January, 1838. Most of the articles of this
review were written by him; but some were contributed by A. H.
Everett, George Bancroft, George Ripley, A. Bronson Alcott,
Sarah Margaret Fuller, Anne Charlotte Lynch, and other friends.
Besides his articles on literary and philosophical subjects, his
political essays in this review attracted attention throughout
the country and brought him into close relations with the
leaders of the Democratic Party. Although a steadfast Democrat,
he disliked the name Democrat, and denounced pure democracy,
called popular sovereignty, or the rule of the will of the
majority, maintaining that government by the will, whether that
of one man or that of many, was mere arbitrary government, and
therefore tyranny, despotism, absolutism. Constitutions, if not
too easily alterable, he thought a wholesome bridle on popular
caprice, and he objected to legislation for the especial benefit
of any individual or class; privileges i. e. private laws;
exemption of stockholders in corporations from liability for
debts of their corporation; tariffs to enrich the moneyed class
at the expense of mechanics, agriculturists, and members of the
liberal professions. He demanded equality of rights, not that
men should be all equal, but that all should be on the same
footing, and no man should make himself taller by standing on
another's shoulders.
In his "Review" for July, 1840, he carried the democratic
principles to their extreme logical conclusions, and urged the
abolition of Christianity; meaning, of course, the only
Christianity he was acquainted with, if, indeed, it be
Christianity; denounced the penal code, as bearing with peculiar
severity on the poor, and the expense to the poor in civil
cases; and, accepting the doctrine of Locke, Jefferson,
Mirabeau, Portalis, Kent, and Blackstone, that the right to
devise or bequeath property is based on statute, not on natural,
law, he objected to the testamentary and hereditary descent of
property; and, what gave more offence than all the rest, he
condemned the modern industrial system, especially the system of
labour at wages. In all this he only carried out the doctrine of
European Socialists and the Saint-Simonians. Democrats were
horrified by the article; Whigs paraded it as what Democrats
were aiming at; and Van Buren, who was a candidate for a second
term as President, blamed it as the main cause of his defeat.
The manner in which he was assailed aroused Brownson's
indignation, and he defended his essay with vigour in the
following number of his "Review", and silenced the clamours
against him, more than regaining the ground he had lost, so that
he never commanded more attention, or had a more promising
career open before him, than when, in 1844, he turned his back
on honours and popularity to become a Catholic. At the end of
1842 the "Boston Quarterly Review" was merged in the "U.S.
Democratic Review", of New York, a monthly publication, to each
number of which Brownson contributed, and in which he set forth
the principles of "Synthetic Philosophy" and a series of essays
on the "Origin and Constitution of Government", which more than
twenty years later he rewrote and published with the title of
"The American Republic". The doctrine of these essays provoked
such repeated complaints from the editor of the "Democratic
Review", that Brownson severed his connexion with that monthly
and resumed the publication of his own review, changing the
title from "Boston" to "Brownson's Quarterly Review". The first
number was issued in January, 1844, and the last in October,
1875. From January, 1865, to October, 1872, he suspended its
publication.
The printed works of Brownson, other than contributions to his
own and other journals, from the commencement of his preaching
to the establishment of this review consisted of his sermons,
orations, and other public addresses; his "New Views of
Christianity, Society, and the Church" (Boston, 1836), in which
he objected to Protestantism that it is pure materialism, to
Catholicism, that it is mere spiritualism, and exalts his
"Church of the Future" as the synthesis of both; "Charles
Elwood" (Boston, 1840), in which the infidel hero becomes a
convert to what the author calls Christianity and makes as
little removed as possible from bald deism; and "The Mediatorial
Life of Jesus" (Boston, 1842), which is almost Catholic, and
contains a doctrine of life which leads to the door of the
Catholic Church. He soon after applied to the Bishop of Boston
for admission, and in October, 1844, was received by the
Coadjutor Bishop, John B. Fitzpatrick.
The Catholic body in the United States was at that time largely
composed of men and women of the labouring class, who had
emigrated from a country in which they and their forefathers had
suffered centuries of persecution for the Faith, and had too
long felt themselves a down-trodden people to be able to lift
their countenances with the fearless independence of Americans;
or, if they were better-to-do, feared to make their religion
prominent and extended to those of other faiths the liberal
treatment they hoped for in return. It was Brownson's first
labour to change all this. He engaged at once in controversy
with the organs of the various Protestant sects on one hand, and
against liberalism, latitudinarianism, and political atheism of
Catholics, on the other. The American people, prejudiced against
Catholicity, and opposed to Catholics, were rendered more
prejudiced and opposed by their tame and apologetic tone in
setting forth and defending their Faith, and were delighted to
find Catholics labouring to soften the severities and to throw
off whatever appeared exclusive or rigorous in their doctrine.
But Brownson resolved to stand erect; let his tone be firm and
manly, his voice clear and distinct, his speech strong and
decided. So well did he carry out this resolution, and so able
and intrepid an advocate did he prove in defence of the Faith,
that he merited a letter of approbation and encouragement from
the Bishops of the United States assembled in Plenary Council at
Baltimore, in May, 1849, and from Pope Pius IX, in April, 1854.
In October, 1855, Brownson changed his residence to New York,
and his "Review" was ever after published there--although, after
1857, he made his home in Elizabeth, New Jersey, till 1875, when
he went to live in Detroit, where he died in the following
April. A little over a year before moving to New York, he wrote,
"The Spirit Rapper" (Boston, 1854), a book in the form of a
novel and a biography, showing the connexion of spiritism with
modern philanthropy, visionary reforms, socialism,
revolutionism; with the aim of recalling the age to faith in the
Gospel. His next book, written in New York, was "The Convert;
or, Leaves from my Experience" (New York, 1857), tracing with
fidelity his entire religious life down to his admission to the
bosom of the Catholic Church.
Brownson had not been many years in New York before the
influence of those Catholics with whom he mainly associated was
perceptible in the tone of his writings, in the milder and
almost conciliatory attitude towards those not of the Faith,
which led many of his old admirers to fear he was becoming a
"liberal Catholic". At the same time, the War of the Rebellion
having broken out, he was most earnest in denouncing Secession
and urging its suppression, and as a means to this, the
abolition of slavery. This alienated all his Southern and many
of his Northern supporters. Domestic affliction was added by the
death of his two sons in the summer of 1864. In these
circumstances, he felt unable to go on with his "Review", and in
October of that year announced its discontinuance. But he did
not sit idle. During the eight years that followed, he wrote
"The American Republic; Its Constitution, Tendencies, and
Destiny" (New York, 1865); leading articles in the New York
"Tablet", continued till within a few months of his death;
several series of articles in "The Ave Maria"; generally one or
two articles a month in "The Catholic World"; and, instructed by
the "Syllabus of Errors" condemned by Pope Pius IX,
"Conversations on Liberalism and the Church" (New York, 1869), a
small book which shows that if for a short period of his
Catholic life, he parleyed with Liberalism, he had too much
horror of it to embrace it. In January, 1873, "Brownson's
Quarterly Review" appeared again and regularly thereafter till
the end of 1875. His last article was contributed to the
"American Catholic Quarterly Review", for January, 1876.
Brownson always disclaimed having originated any system of
philosophy and acknowledged freely whatever he borrowed from
others; but he had worked out and arrived at substantially the
philosophy of his later writings before he ever heard of
Gioberti, from whom he obtained the formula ens creat
existentias, which Gioberti expressed in the formula ens creat
existens, to indicate the ideal or intelligible object of
thought. By the analysis of thought he finds that it is composed
of three inseparable elements, subject, object, and their
relation, simultaneously given. Analysis of the object shows
that it is likewise composed of three elements simultaneously
given, the ideal, the empirical, and their relation. He
distinguished the ideal intuition, in which the activity is in
the object presenting or offering itself, and empirical
intuition or cognition, in which the subject as well as the
object acts. Ideal intuition presents the object, reflection
takes it as represented sensibly; that is, in case of the ideal,
as represented in language. Identifying ideas with the
categories of the philosophers, he reduced them to these three:
Being, Existences, and their Relations. The necessary is Being;
the contingent, Existences; and their relation, the creative act
of Being. Being is God, personal because He has intelligence and
will. From Him, as First Cause, proceed the physical laws; and
as Final Cause, the moral law, commanding to worship Him,
naturally or supernaturally, in the way and manner He
prescribes.
ORESTES A. BROWNSON, The Convert (New York, 1857); HENRY F.
BROWNSON, Brownson's Early, Middle and Latter Life (Detroit,
1898-1900); IDEM, ed., Brownson's Works (Detroit, 1883-87).
HENRY F. BROWNSON
Sarah M. Brownson
Sarah M. Brownson
Daughter of Orestes A. Brownson, b. at Chelsea, Massachusetts, 7
June, 1839; married William J. Tenney, of Elizabeth, New Jersey,
26 November, 1873; died at Elizabeth, 30 October, 1876. She
wrote some literary criticisms for her father's "Review", and
many articles, stories, and poems which appeared mainly in
Catholic magazines. Her other works were: "Marian Elwood, or How
Girls Live" (New York, 1863); "At Anchor; a story of the
American Civil War" (New York, 1865); "Heremore Brandon; or the
Fortunes of a Newsboy" (in "The Catholic World", 1869); and
"Life of Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin, Prince and Priest" (New
York, 1873). Her novels are interesting, genuine, and original,
and all that she published is stamped with her distinguishing
traits of character, and shows that she thought for herself,
expressed herself freely, with good sense and judgment, without
undue bitterness, and with great benevolence towards the poor;
and she scatters over her pages many excellent reflections. The
life of Gallitzin is her principal production, for which she
spared no pains to collect such materials as remained. She more
than once visited the scenes of the missionary's labours, and
formed the acquaintance of priests and others who had known him,
collecting such facts and anecdotes of him as they remembered.
It is a sincere and conscientious tribute to the rare virtues
and worth of an extraordinary man, devoted priest, and humble
missionary.
HENRY F. BROWNSON
Brownsville
Brownsville
Vicariate Apostolic, erected 1874. Previous to this date the
entire State of Texas was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Galveston. It was then divided into two dioceses: Galveston,
comprising all that part of the State north and north-west of
the Colorado River; San Antonio, comprising all the territory
south of the Colorado River and north of the Nueces River, with
the exception of Bee, San Patricio, Refugio, Goliad, and Aransas
Counties and the Vicariate Apostolic of Brownsville comprising
Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, and Webb Counties, bordering on
the Rio Grande; Encinal, Duval, and Nueces, situated north of
these counties; the part of La Salle, McMullen, and Live Oak,
south of the Nueces River, and finally San Patricio, Bee,
Refugio, Goliad, and Aransas Counties, north of the Nueces
River, a territory comprising 22,391 square miles.
Its principal cities and towns are:
+ Laredo (Texas side), with 12,000 inhabitants;
+ Brownsville, near the mouth of the Rio Grande, with 8,000;
+ Corpus Christi, on the Corpus Christi Bay, with 7,000;
+ San Diego, in Duval County, with 2,000;
+ Alice, in Nueces County, with 1,000;
+ Rockport, on Aransas Bay, with 1,000;
+ Goliad and Refugio with about the same population;
+ Beeville, in Bee County, with 2,000.
There are other towns with less population, Skidmore in Bee
County, Kingsville in Nueces County, Falfurrias, Benavides,
Realitos, Hebbronville, Edinburgh, Hidalgo, Carrizo (or Zapata),
Minas, Rio Grande City, each with a population of 1,500. The
Catholic population is estimated at 79,000, mostly Mexicans;
there are about 3,000 English-speaking Catholics. The total
population is about 110,000.
This southern part of Texas was inhabited by Indians less than
sixty years ago. Corpus Christi had for its first settler Capt.
Kenny, who had a store several times visited by hostile Indians.
Brownsville owes its beginning to Major Brown, who came there at
the time of the Mexican War. The church there was begun in 1852.
San Patricio and Refugio were settled by Irish colonists under
the Mexican Government. La Bahia is the most ancient settlement;
it was built by the Spaniards to oppose the encroachments of the
French under La Salle. After La Bahia the oldest place is
Laredo, built at the end of the eighteenth century. In 1866
there was not a fence nor a railroad to be seen from San Antonio
to Brownsville; now the whole country is fenced in, and there
are six railroad lines in operation.
The Oblate Fathers, whose missions extend from San Ignacio to
the mouth of the Rio Grande, located in Texas in 1852, their
first superior being Father Verdet. Within a week he was drowned
in the Gulf on his way from Brownsville to New Orleans. The
mission of Rio Grande City was begun in 1872, the one at Roma in
1864, the San Diego mission in 1866. Laredo was in charge of
Mexican priests until Father Girandon came in 1855. San Patricio
was under the care of Irish priests. Father O'Reilly built in
1856 the first Catholic church of Corpus Christi. Brownsville,
Laredo, Corpus Christi, Refugio, and Beeville have large and
well decorated churches. There are twelve churches with resident
pastors: Brownsville, Rio Grande City, Roma, Laredo, San Diego,
Corpus Christi, Rockport, Goliad, Refugio, Beeville, and San
Patricio. There are also forty chapels where regular monthly
services are held. The vicariate has two hospitals, one in
Laredo under the care of the Sisters of Mercy, and a new one in
Corpus Christi, under the care of the Sisters of the Incarnate
Word, of San Antonio.
There are four academies, namely, Brownsville, Corpus Christi,
Laredo, and Rio Grande City, with about 60 boarders in all, and
about 200 scholars. Besides, there are nine parochial schools,
with about 500 pupils, under the care of 52 teaching sisters,
assisted by 20 lay sisters. There are, in addition to these, 12
hospital sisters, and 6 engaged in teaching non-Catholic public
schools. There is but one college (in Brownsville, under the
care of the Oblate Fathers), with about 100 pupils.
The Reverend Dominic Manucy, then rector of St. Peter's church,
Montgomery, Alabama, was appointed first Vicar Apostolic of
Brownsville, and consecrated Titular Bishop of Dulma, 8
December, 1878. He was born 20 December, 1823, and ordained
priest, at Mobile, 15 August, 1850. He took possession at
Brownsville, 11 February, 1875, and remained there until he was
transferred to the Diocese of Mobile upon the death of Bishop
Quinlan, 9 March, 1883. He resigned the See of Mobile the
following year and was reappointed to Brownsville, with the
Titular See of Maronia. He died at Mobile, 4 December, 1885.
Bishop Neraz of San Antonio, Texas, was then appointed
administrator of Brownsville, and directed its affairs until
1890, when the Rev. Pedro Verdaguer, pastor of the church of Our
Lady of Angels, Los Angeles, California, was appointed to
Brownsville by a Brief, dated 3 July. He was consecrated 9
November, 1890, at Barcelona, Spain, titular Bishop of Aulon,
and was installed at Brownsville, 21 May, 1891. He was born 10
December, 1835, at San Pedro de Torello, Cataluna, Spain, and
ordained priest, 12 December, 1862, at San Francisco,
California, U.S.A.
C. JAILLET
Heinrich Bruck
Heinrich Brück
Ecclesiastical historian and bishop, born at Bingen, 25 October,
1831; died 4 November, 1903. He followed for some time the
cooper's trade. After a course of studies under of a
distinguished ecclesiastic, Dr. Joseph Hirschel, he entered the
seminary at Mainz. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1855,
exercised for some time the sacred ministry, made a postgraduate
course at Munich under Döllinger, and at Rome, and in 1867 was
appointed to the chair of ecclesiastical history in the seminary
of Mainz. He continued to teach until his elevation to the
episcopate, with the exception of the years from 1878 to 1887,
when seminary was closed by the order of the Government. In 1889
he became a canon of the cathedral; he received also several
positions of trust in the administration of the diocese. In 1899
he was chosen Bishop of Mainz; as such he directed the diocese
with zeal and intelligence. The merit of Brück consists chiefly
in his literary activity. Perhaps his best known work is his
manual of church history, from "Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte"
(Mainz, 1874; 8th ed., 1902). It has been translated into
English, French, and Italian, all of which translations passed
through second editions before 1899, an evidence that its
excellent qualities were widely appreciated. The author shows
himself possessed of extensive knowledge not only in history,
but also in theology and canon law. A more special work is his
"Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Deutschland im
neunzehnten Jahrhundert" -- History of the catholic Church in
Germany in the Nineteenth Century", in five volumes (1887-1905).
It contains a rich store of information, arranged with
thoroughness and sound critical judgment, and was received with
universal approval by Catholic scholars. He was also the author
of an account of rationalistic movements in Catholic Germany
(1865), a life of Dean Lennig (1870), and a work on secret
societies in Spain (1881).
FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER
Joachim Bruel
Joachim Bruel
(Brulius).
A theologian and historian, born early in the seventeenth
century at Vorst, a village of the province of Brabant, Belgium,
died 29 June, 1653. After entering the order to assist in the
establishment of Augustinians he was sent to Bourges, France, to
finish his studies in philosophy and theology. At Bourges he
received the degree of Master in Sacred Theology. In 1638 he was
chosen prior of the convent of his order at Cologne. Twice
afterwards (1640 and 1649) he filled the office of prior
provincial. He is of special interest to the student of Peruvian
and Chinese missions.
Among his published works are: (1) "Historiae Peruanae Ordinis
Eremitarum S.P. Augustini: Libri octodecim." This work follows
the Spanish "Cronica moralizada del Orden de San Augustin en el
Peru", published by Fra Antonio de la Calancha, Barcelona, 1638;
continued by Fra Diego de Cordova, and printed at Lima, 1653.
Bruel's Latin version was printed at Antwerp, 1651. (2) He made
also a Latin translation of Mendoza's monumental history of
China, "Rerum Morumque in Regno Chinensi" etc.
FRANCIS E. TOURSCHER
David-Augustine de Brueys
David-Augustine de Brueys
A French theologian and dramatic author, born at Aix in 1640;
died 25 November, 1723, at Montpellier. His family was
Protestant, and he was brought up a Calvinist. After devoting
some time to the study of law, he applied himself to theology
with so much success that he was made a member of the consistory
of Montpellier. In 1691, he published an answer to Bossuet's
"Exposition of Catholic Doctrine", entitled "Réponse au livre de
M. de Condom intitute Exposition de la doctrine catholique"
(Geneva, 1681). He was soon, however, converted by Bossuet
himself, abjured Protestantism in l682, and, after his wife's
death, became a priest. Before his conversion he wrote, besides
the "Réponse", the "Suite du Preservatif (de Jurieu) contre le
changement de religion" (1682).
His principal works, written after his conversion, are: "Examen
des raisons qui ont donné lieu à la séparation des protestants"
(Paris, 1683), in which he explains the reasons of his
conversion; "Traité de la sainte messe" (Paris, 1683); "Défense
du culte extérieur de l'Eglise catholique" (Paris, 1686);
"Response aux plaintes des protestants contre les moyens que
l'on emploie en France pour les réunir à l'Eglise" (Paris,
1686); "Traité de l'Eglise" (Paris, 1686); "Traité de
l'Eucharistie" (Paris, 1686); "Histoire du fanaticisme de notre
temps" (I, 1692; II, 1709; III and IV, 1713); "Traité de
l'obéissance des chrétiens aux puissances temporelles" (Paris,
1710); "Traité du légitime usage de la raison principalement sur
les objets de la foi" (Paris, 1717).
In collaboration with Palaprat, Brueys also wrote several comic
plays and a few tragedies, most of which were produced with
great success. They were published in two volumes in 1712, under
the title of "OEvres dramatiques". A new edition to three
volumes appeared in 1755, with the author's life by De Launay;
again in 1755 (5 vols.), under the title of "OEuvres de Brueys
et Palaprat"; and finally in 1812 (2 vols.) as "OEuvres
choisies".
C.A. DUBRAY
Louis-Frederic Brugere
Louis-Frédéric Brugère
Professor of apologetics and church history, born at Orléans, 8
(October 1823; died at Issy, 11 April, 1888. He studied with the
Christian Brothers at St. Euverte, and at the Petit Séminaire of
Orléans. His poem of 300 lines describing an inundation of the
Rhone and composed in 1841, was printed and sold for the benefit
of the flood victims at Lyons. He entered the Grand seminaire of
Orléans in 1841 and the Paris seminaire 1845, where he received
the degrees of Bachelor of Licentiate, and Doctor. From 1846 to
1861 with the exception of two years spent as assistant in the
parish of St. Aignan, Brugère taught the classics and philosophy
in the Orléans diocesan college of La Chapelle-saint-Mesmin. In
1862 he entered the society of Saint-Sulpice and was appointed
professor of apologetics in the seminary of Paris where, in
1868, he occupied the chair of of church history in addition to
his other labours.
Brugère's teaching was characterized by rare tact and
discernment. It was his conviction that, in order to assist in
the establishment of communication between the naturally
darkened mind and the radiance of revealed truth, the Christian
apologist must consider the individual mental attitude of those
whom he would direct. Thus he was a strong advocate of the
methodus ascendens ab intrinseco, which was introduced towards
the end of the fifteenth century, and which holds that the
apologist should first arouse interest by setting forth the
needy condition of the human soul, with its problems unsolved
and its cravings unsatisfied; then gradually suggest the
unchanging organization which offers satisfaction and peace.
Curiosity and interest thus intensified, and the admirable
adjustment of Christianity to the needs of the soul once
recognized, fairmindedness urging further research, the honest
inquirer will learn how moral certitude, though differing from
metaphysical and physical certitude, is nevertheless true
certitude, excluding all reasonable fear of error, and is not to
be confounded with probability, however great. Thus, only when
prepared to recognize in the genuine miracle the credentials of
the Divinity, may this inquirer be conducted back through
history, from fulfilment to prediction, in the hope of
discovering, by well authenticated miracles, that the Almighty
has stamped as His own the Christianity preserved, defended, and
explained by His one true Church.
Such, in brief outline, is the method advocated in "De Verâ
Religione" and "De Ecclesia", two treatises which Brugère
published in 1873, and which, from their adaptability to the
needs of the day, merited the approval of competent judges. In
addition to these treatises, Brugère published "Tableau de
l'histoire et de la littérature de l'Eglise". But it is chiefly
as a professor that Brugère is remembered. Gitfted with a
remarkable memory, his mind was a storehouse of exact
information which he freely imparted, embellishing it with
anecdote and illustration, so that students gladly sought him
out for pleasure and profit
DANIEL P. DUFFY
Bruges
Bruges
The chief town of the Province of West Flanders in the Kingdom
of Belgium. Pope Nicholas I in 863 effected a reconciliation
between Charles the Bald, King of the West Franks, and his
vassal Baldwin "Bras-de-Fer"; by it the latter's abduction of
his daughter Judith was forgiven and the union legalized. The
Frankish king further invested his son-in-law with sovereign
power over the northern marches enclosed by the North Sea, the
Scheldt, and the River Canche, later known as Royal Flanders, of
which he thus became the first count. On the ruins of an old
burg, said to have dated from 366, Baldwin built himself a new
stronghold, with a chapel for the relics of St. Donatian, the
gift of Ebbo, Archbishop of Reims, the metropolitan see at that
time of most of the Belgian dioceses, and by his valour and
untiring energy speedily checked the inroads of the ravaging
Northmen. The security he was thus able to afford his subjects
caused merchants and artisans to gather round the new
settlement, which rapidly grew in size and in wealth. Such was
the origin of Bruges. But it was under the rule of the third
count, Arnulph the Great (918-989), that the Church attained the
full measure of its vitality in Flanders. This prince not only
founded and richly endowed the famed Chapter of St. Donatian,
but he established collegiate churches in the neighbouring towns
of Aardenburg and Thorholt, and built or restored eighteen great
monasteries, besides a number of minor foundations; and such was
his prestige that it was to him St. Dunstan turned for shelter
in the hour of danger, much as St. Thomas of Canterbury at a
later epoch (1164) besought the protection of his successor,
Thierry of Alsace, against the wrath of Henry II. Under the
fostering care of the monastery learning and the arts speedily
revived, while commerce and agriculture made equally rapid
strides under the patronage of the court. The great charter of
liberties conferred by Baldwin IV (988-1036) provided a new
incentive to business, which increased by leaps and bounds, and
the town so outgrew its boundaries that his successor was
compelled in 1039 to rebuild and extend its walls. The epoch of
the Crusades (1096-1270) contributed in no small measure to the
fame and prosperity of Bruges. Count Robert II from the first of
these great undertakings brought back from Caesarea in
Cappadocia the relics of St. Basil; Thierry of Alsace returned
from the second with the relic of the Holy Blood presented to
him by his cousin Baldwin, King of Jerusalem, as the reward of
his great services; while Baldwin IX, who took part in the
fourth, was raised to the imperial throne on the founding of the
Latin Empire after the fall of Constantinople, 9 April, 1204.
From 7 April, 1150, the day on which Thierry of Alsace returned
to his capital with the precious relic, it has played no small
part in the religious life of the city. The solemn Procession of
the Holy Blood, instituted in 1303 to commemorate the
deliverance of the city, by the national heroes Breidel and De
Coninck, from French tyranny in May of the previous year and
which takes place annually on the Monday following the first
Sunday in May, is to this day one of the great religious
celebrations in Belgium, to which thousands congregate from all
parts. By the close of the thirteenth century Bruges had
attained the height of its prosperity: it boasted a population
of 150,000, a seaport with 60,000 inhabitants at Damme at the
end of the Zwijn, three miles away, an important harbour at
Sluus at the mouth of the Zwijn, seven miles further, besides
several subordinate townships, and was one of the three
wealthiest cities of Northern Europe. In 1296 the staple of wool
was fixed at Bruges, in 1300 it became a member of the Hanseatic
League, and by 1356 it was the chief emporium of the cities of
the League.
With the removal of Baldwin IX the long line of purely Flemish
counts came to an end, and Flanders passed under French
domination. This period of foreign rule, which lasted the best
part of a century, was a time of almost continual warfare
between the suzerain power and the vassal people, complicated by
internecine strife with the rival town of Ghent; and though
humiliating disasters alternated with glorious victories, this
the heroic epoch of Flemish history closed without the
commercial prosperity of Bruges having suffered any very serious
check. With the advent of the House of Burgundy in 1384,
Flanders unhappily became involved in the religious troubles
which were then agitating Europe. The new prince, Philip "le
Hardi" (1384-1404), who favoured the pretensions of the
antipope, soon proceeded from aimless sympathy to open
proselytism, but the edict by which he forbade obedience to the
Pope of Rome was utterly disregarded by his turbulent subjects,
the clergy, almost to a man, and the great mass of the people
acknowledging Urban VI. The Clementine Bishop of Tournai, whose
spiritual administration embraced Bruges, came hither to ordain
schismatic priests, but the people refused their ministrations,
and a period of persecution followed during which public worship
was entirely suspended. Ghent, however, had purchased the right
to liberty of conscience, and so in 1394 the strange spectacle
was witnessed of a whole town's population on pilgrimage from
Bruges to Ghent to fulfil their Easter duties. Philip's
successors, John the Fearless (1404-19) and Philip "l'Asseuré"
(1419-67), pursued this policy of subjugation, until in 1440,
the year of "the Great Humiliation", the burghers of Bruges were
completely at the mercy of their prince. The next quarter of a
century was a period of pomp and pageantry, a feverish
succession of gorgeous tournaments, public banquets, and
triumphal entries, and a display of opulence out of all
proportion to the true productive forces of the commonwealth.
Like a true Duke of Burgundy Philip revelled in the splendour of
his court. It was he who on 10 January, 1429, founded at Bruges
the Order of the Golden Fleece. Munificent in all things, he
gathered about him all the great luminaries of his day. It is
also on record that within the twenty-four hours of one day
about 1450, no less than one hundred and fifty foreign vessels
entered the basin and canals of Bruges under the auspices of the
resident consuls of seventeen kingdoms, several of whom were
established there in sumptuous palaces. Industry at the time
boasted no less than fifty-four incorporated associations or
guilds, fifty thousand of whose members found constant
employment within the city's walls. The days of Charles the Bold
(1467-77) saw the culmination of all this splendour. And then
suddenly the blow fell. The great haven of the Zwijn was found
to be fast silting up; before the close of the century no vessel
of any considerable draught could enter the port of Damme, and
by the middle of the sixteenth century Bruges was entirely cut
off from the sea.
By the marriage of the daughter of Charles the Bold to Archduke
Maximilian Flanders passed under the rule of the House of
Austria (1477), and from 1485 the decay of the old Flemish city
steadily set in. A period of continual disturbances, ruthlessly
repressed by a government destitute of stability, produced a
feeling of uneasiness in the commercial world. Antwerp at the
time was already proving a dangerous rival, and gradually the
merchant princes, enticed by the greater security offered and
the many advantages held out to them, removed to the city of the
Scheldt. The religious disturbances of the last quarter of the
sixteenth century hastened the exodus, even to the removal of
the last of the foreign consuls. The severities of the Emperor
Charles V (1519-56) and the harsher rule of Philip II (1556-98)
and the Duke of Alva led to the capture of Bruges by the
Calvinists in March, 1578, when for six years Catholic worship
was entirely proscribed. The clergy were exiled or murdered, the
churches pillaged and desecrated, some even levelled to the
ground, and when peace returned in 1584 the population scarcely
numbered 30,000. A period of utter misery followed, in which was
developed among the wealthy, under the guidance of the
Church--Bruges had been created an episcopal see in 1558--that
great spirit of charity which led to the founding of innumerable
Godshuizen (God's houses) which exist to this day for the relief
of an impoverished community. Flanders then became the cockpit
of Europe: there was the unsuccessful bombardment of Bruges by
the Dutch in 1704, the surrender to the Allies in 1706, its
surprise-capture by the French in 1708, its capture by
Marlborough in 1712, its surrender to the French again in 1745,
and eventually its return to the rule of Austria in 1748; in
1792 the French again took it, were expelled, and retook it in
1794, when it became the chief town of the department of the
Lys; by the Treaty of Vienna (1815) it was incorporated in the
new Kingdom of the Netherlands, eventually, as a result of the
Revolution of 1830, becoming the chief town of the Province of
West Flanders in the then constituted Kingdom of Belgium. In
1877 the idea of recreating the canal with an outer harbour
abreast of Heyst was first mooted, thus reviving an old scheme
of the painter and engineer Lancelot Blondeel (1496-1561),
discovered in the local archives. Eventually the project,
despite the determined opposition of Antwerp, received the
sanction of the legislature on 11 September, 1895, the cost of
the undertaking being fixed at 38,969,075 francs. Seven years
was the limit allowed for the completion of the work, but it was
not until 29 May, 1905, that the informal opening of the canal
to navigation took place, the official inauguration being
celebrated in July of 1907. The result has been a large increase
in population (which stood at 56,587 in 1906), the establishment
of considerable industries, and a corresponding decrease in the
chronic poverty of the city; so that it is not surprising if its
good folk are already indulging dreams of a revival of its
medieval grandeur and prosperity.
It were difficult to exaggerate the importance attaching to
Bruges from the point of view of art. Singularly ill-favoured as
West Flanders was in respect of building material, the only
local stone available (veld steen) being of a description little
adapted to weather the centuries, Bruges presents no examples of
stone architecture of the early period; and later, when suitable
stone came to be imported from Tournai and from France, the
master masons employed in its use and treatment were likewise of
foreign origin. In respect of civic and domestic brick
architecture, however, Bruges stands unrivalled, both for number
and variety of design. Her school of sculpture was early held in
high esteem, eliciting a large foreign demand for stalls and
other descriptions of church and domestic furniture in oak, and
the revival of the art during the past half-century has been
attended with marked success. In equally high esteem stood her
wrought-iron work, and in even greater her engraved monumental
brasses, which, prior to the Calvinist outbreak in the sixteenth
century, were exceedingly numerous throughout Flanders, and
examples of which are of frequent occurrence in England,
Germany, Scandinavia, and Spain, from which countries there was
a constant influx of orders. In the department of embroidery and
lace work Bruges likewise enjoyed a high reputation, especially
in respect of ecclesiastical vestments, in the production of
which, as of lace, a large number of hands are employed to this
day. But above all, Bruges, since the second quarter of the
fifteenth century, has been celebrated for her paintings. Owing
to the greater peace and security enjoyed within her walls many
master painters from the valley of the Maas, from Holland, and
from Brabant were attracted thither at that period. These,
however, had all learned their art elsewhere. John van Eyck, who
worked there from 1431 to 1441, exercised a considerable
influence, and the scheme of his altar-piece in the Town Museum
was imitated by the Brabanter Peter Christus, the Rhenish Hans
Memlinc, and the Hollander Gerard David. The Town Museum and the
Hospital of St. John are treasure houses of paintings from the
brush of these great artists. Gerard David was the first to form
a school, whose traditions were carried on until the seventeenth
century; and he with his pupils and followers produced an
immense number of paintings, scattered all over Europe. Later on
Peter Pourbus of Gouda and the Claeissens adhered to the old
traditions, which held the field in Bruges longer than anywhere
else. In the matter of illuminated books and miniatures it also
enjoyed considerable celebrity, and examples of both are to be
found in almost every library of importance.
In 1558 Pope Paul IV, at the request of Philip II, raised Bruges
to a separate bishopric. The diocese at the present day
comprises the entire province of West Flanders, an area of 1,249
square miles with 828,152 inhabitants, almost exclusively
Catholics. Twenty-two bishops have so far administered the see.
For the purposes of administration the diocese is divided into
the archpresbytery of Bruges and 14 rural deaneries, the former
being subdivided into 8 parishes ministered to by 31 priests,
and the latter into 286 parishes served by 642 priests. The
cathedral chapter consists of 10 titular and 19 honorary canons,
with 6 chaplains. The diocesan seminary at Bruges has more than
a hundred students, advanced from the preparatory seminary at
Roulers. For the purposes of general education there is an
episcopal college at Bruges and eight similar colleges at the
larger centres of the diocese in which all the humanities are
taught, besides four others at minor centres were the studies
are not so advanced; for technical education there is a normal
school at Bruges and four in other parts of the diocese, all
these institutions being almost entirely taught by
ecclesiastics. Most of the religious orders, both male and
female, have houses in the diocese, besides hospitals and
asylums for the aged and the poor.
Bruges returns 2 members to the Senate and 4 members to the
House of Representatives, while other portions of the Province
elect a total of 7 senators and 16 representatives, the
Provincial Council further electing 3 senators. Under the law of
proportional representation, which first came into operation in
1900, Bruges returns 1 Catholic and 1 Liberal to the Senate, and
3 Catholics and 1 Liberal to the House of Representatives; other
portions of the Province return 5 Catholics and 2 Liberals to
the Senate, and 12 Catholics, 3 Liberals, and 1 Socialist to the
House of Representatives; the 3 members returned to the Senate
by the Provincial Council belong to the Catholic party; the
result is that West Flanders (otherwise the Diocese of Bruges)
is represented in the Senate by 9 Catholics and 3 Liberals (in
addition to the Count of Flanders, who is a member by virtue of
his title), and in the House of Representatives by 15 Catholics,
4 Liberals, and 1 Socialist. The government of the province is
entirely in the hands of the Catholics, the governor and the
great majority of the Provincial Council belonging to that
party. As much may be said of the local administration of
Bruges, the Communal Council (which consists of the burgomaster,
5 aldermen, and 24 councillors) with the exception of 6
councillors (five of whom are Liberals and one a Christian
Democrat) being in the hands of the Catholic party.
MIRAEUS, Rerum Belgicarum Annales (Brussels, 1625); GILLIODTS,
Inventaire des Archives de la ville de Bruges, avec une
introduction: tables and glossary by EDW. GILLIARD (Bruges,
1878-85); GILLIAT-SMITH, The Story of Bruges (London, 1901);
ROBINSON, Bruges: an Historical Sketch (Bruges, 1899);
VERSCHELDE, De Kathedrale van Sint Salvator te Brugge:
Geschiedkundige Beschryving (Bruges, 1863); Les anciennes
Maisons de Bruges (Bruges, 1875); W. H. JAMES WEALE, Hans
Memlinc: Biography; Pictures at Bruges (Bruges, 1901); Gerard
David, Painter and Illuminator (London, 1895); VON BODENHAUSEN,
Gerard David und seine Schule (Munich, 1905); FRANCES C. WEALE,
Hubert and John van Eyck (London, 1903).
J. CYRIL M. WEALE
Pierre Brugiere
Pierre Brugière
A French priest, Jansenist, and Juror, born at Thiers, 3
October, 1730; died at Paris, 7 November, 1803. He was chaplain
of the Ursulines and canon in his native place when his refusal
to sign the formula of the acceptation of the Bull "Unigenitus"
forced him to leave. He went to Paris where for twelve years he
remained with the community of St. Roch. A strongly Jansenistic
book which he wrote, "Instructions catholiques sur la dévotion
au Sacre-Coeur" (Paris, 1777), brought this connection to an
end. When the Revolution broke out he welcomed it with
enthusiasm. He rushed headlong into the fray with two books
calling loudly for reform: "Doléances des églisiers" and
"Relation sommaire et véritable de ce qui s'est passé dans
l'Assemblée du clergé" (1789).
Brugière not only took the Constitutional Oath on the day fixed,
9 Jan., 1791, but he became as it were the heart and soul of the
Constitutional Church. Elected curé of St. Paul's he defended
the civil constitution of the clergy against episcopal and papal
censures in his "Discours patriotique au sujet des brefs du
pape" and "La lanterne sourde" (aimed at Bonal, Bishop of
Clermont). It is to his credit, however, that he energetically
condemned the marriage of priests which the Constitution was
doing its utmost to encourage. Against this practice he wrote
his "Réflexions d'un curé", and "Lettre d'un curé" (1791), and
together with several other constitutionals he denounced its
advocates without mercy in "Le nouveau disciple de Luther"
(1792). This brochure was aimed at Aubert, a married priest
appointed by Gobel curé of St. Augustin. Brugière's fearless
preaching placed him in the hands of the revolutionary tribunal,
and it was while he was imprisoned he wrote to his followers the
"Lettre d'un cure du fond de sa prison à ses paroissiens"
(1793). Set at liberty, he continued his pastoral ministrations
in spite of the charge of treasonable conduct, a dangerous thing
in those days. But his ministrations were of a novel kind. Mass
was said and the sacraments were administered by him in French,
and in support of that singularity an appeal was made to the
people, "Appel au peuple francais" (1798)
Brugière had rebuked the bishops who condemned the oath. He had
likewise rebuked the priests who married. Now he was no less
violent against the Jurors who began to retract. He attended the
two councils of 1797 and 1801 which were trying hard to sustain
the ebbing life of the Constitutional Church, and he founded a
society for its protection: "Société de philosophie chrétienne".
Even after the promulgation of the Concordat of 1801 he clung to
the then dead Constitutional Church. Besides the works already
mentioned, Brugière wrote a number of pamphlets and left many
sermons which were published after his death: "Instructions
choisies" (Paris,1804). Two contemporaries, the Abbé Massy and
the Christian Brother Renaud, wrote his life under the title:
"Mémoire apologétique de Pierre Brugière" (Paris, 1804).
J.F. SOLLIER
John Brugman
John Brugman
A renowned Franciscan preacher of the fifteenth century, b. at
Kempen in the Diocese of Cologne, towards the end of the
preceding century; d. at Nimwegen, Netherlands, 19 sept., 1473.
He became lector of theology, vicar-provincial and one of the
founders Cologne Province of the Friars of the Minor Observance.
For twenty years his name was celebrated as the most illustrious
preacher of the Low Countries. Being the friend of Denis the
Carthusian, it was due to his suggestion that he latter wrote
his work: "De doctrinâ et regulis vitae Christianæ", dedicating
it to Father Brugman. He also espoused the cause of the Brothers
of the Common Life, which congregation, successfully devoted to
the interests of education, had been established by two priests,
Gerhard Groote and Florentius Radewiyns. He addressed them in
the two letters which are still extant to strengthen them in the
persecution to which they were subjected. He died in the odour
of sanctity and is commemorated in the "Martyrologium
Minoritico-Belgicum" on the l9th of September. Father Brugman
wrote two lives of St. Lidwina, the first of which, printed at
Cologne in 1433, was reprinted anonymously at Louvain in 1448,
and later epitomized by Thomas à Kempis at Cologne. The second
life appeared at Schiedam in 1498; both have been embodied by
the Bollandists in the Acta SS., 2 April. He also wrote a devout
"Life of Jesus." Father Brugman ranked among the best poets of
his day. Two of his poems "O Ewich is so lanc!" and "The
Zielejacht" are included by Hoffmann von Fallersleben in his
"Horae Belgicae" (II, 36, 41.) His life was written by Dr. Mohl
under the title "Joannes Brugman en bet Godsdlenstegen Leven
Onzer Vaderen in de Vijftiende eeuw", and published at Amsterdam
in 1854. It consists of two volumes, second containing Brugman's
unedited works.
ANDREW EGAN
Constantino Brumidi
Constantino Brumidi
An Italian-American historical painter, celebrated for his
fresco work in the Capitol at Washington, b. at Rome, 1805; d.
at Washington, 19 February, 1880. His father was a native of
Greece and his mother a Roman. He showed his talent for fresco
painting at an early age and painted in several Roman palaces,
among them being that of Prince Torlonia. Under Gregory XVI he
worked for three years in the Vatican. The occupation of Rome by
the French in l849 apparently decided Brumidi to emigrate, and
he sailed for the United States, where he became naturalized in
1852. Taking up his residence in New York City the artist
painted a number of portraits. Subsequently he undertook more
important works, the principal being a fresco of the Crucifixion
in St. Stephen's Church, for which he also executed a "Martyrdom
of St. Stephen" and an "Assumption of the Virgin". In 1854
Brumidi went to the city of Mexico, where he painted in the
cathedral as allegorical representation of the Holy Trinity. On
his way back to New York he stopped at Washington and visited
the Capitol. Impressed with the opportunity for decoration
presented by its vast interior wall spaces, he offered his
services for that purpose to Quartermaster-General Meigs. This
offer was accepted, and about the same time he was commissioned
as a captain of cavalry. His first art work in the Capitol was
in the room of the House Cornmittee on Agriculture. At first he
received eight dollars a day, which Jefferson Davis, then
Secretary of War of the United States, caused to be increased to
ten dollars. His work attracting much favourable attention, he
was given further commisssons, and gradually settled into the
position of a Government painter. His chief work in Washington
was done in the rotunda of the Capitol and included the
apotheosis of Washington in the dome, as well as other
allegories, and scenes from American history. His work in the
rotunda was left unfinished at his death, but he had decorated
many other of the building. In the Catholic Cathedral of
Philadelphia he pictured St. Peter and St. Paul. Brumidi was a
capable, if conventional painter, and his black and white
modelling in the work at Washington, in imitation of bas-relief,
is strikingly effective.
AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF
Pierre Brumoy
Pierre Brumoy
Born at Rouen in Normandy, 1688; entered the Society of Jesus in
1704; died in Paris, 1742. Brumoy belonged to that distinguished
group of humanists who shed lustre upon the Society of Jesus
shortly before its suppression in France. Between the years 1722
and 1739 he contributed many articles to the celebrated "Journal
de Trevoux" of which he was for some time the editor. Of the
"History of the Gallican Church", which had been begun by
Fathers Longueval and Fontenay, he wrote volumes XI and XII
(1226-1320). He also composed several college tragedies on
sacred subjects and many poems and discourses in Latin and in
French. His Latin didactic poem "De motibus animi" (on the
passions) was highly esteemed by his contemporaries. His most
important work, "Le theatre des Grecs", which was first
published in 1730 in three volumes, has often been reprinted. It
contains translations and analyses of the Greek tragedies,
supplemented by keen critical and aesthetic observations. An
English translation was made by Mrs. Charlotte Lennox with the
assistance of the Earl of Cork and Dr. Samuel Johnson, and first
published in London in 1759.
B. GULDNER
Filippo Brunellesco
Filippo Brunellesco
(Or Brunelleschi)
An architect and sculptor, born at Florence, 1377; died there 16
April, 1446. As an architect Brunellesco was one of the chief
leaders in the early period of the Renaissance movement. Though
rather unprepossessing in appearance, he was of a cheerful and
congenial disposition, of active and inventive mind, and withal
somewhat quick-tempered. Even in his childish games he evinced a
decided inclination towards the mechanical. Beginning as a
goldsmith, and later turning to sculpture, he finally applied
himself exclusively to architecture without, however, neglecting
his general culture. He read the Bible and Dante to feed his
fancy, but devoted himself with decided preference to the study
of perspective which he was the first to apply to art in
accordance with definitely formulated rules. The correlated
studies of mathematics and geometry also received his attention.
He was considerably influenced by the lifelong friendship of the
mathematician Paolo del Pozzo Toscanelli, by his joint studies
with his younger friend Donatello, by the the artists and
art-works of his native Florence, particularly by the monuments
of Rome, to the study of which he devoted many years. Classical
antiquity was already, at this period, well known and highly
appreciated.
SCULPTURE
The Duomo of Pistoia contains several examples of niello-work
and two silver statues of prophets said to be the earliest works
of Brunellesco. A wooden Magdalen in the church of Santo Spirito
at Florence was destroyed by fire in 1471. His wooden crucifix
in Santa Maria Novella is true to nature and beautiful, while
that by his friend Donatello, in Santa Croce, deserved the
criticism ascribed to Brunellesco: "This is a rustic hanging on
the cross". Two of his perspectives created a great sensation in
Florence. Seventy years later they are described at length by
his first anonymous biographer. Masaccio learned perspective
from Brunellesco and according to Vasari, the architect's second
biographer, it was also applied to intarsia. Brunellesco entered
into competition with Ghiberti and other masters in 1401, when
models for the reliefs of the second bronze door of the
Baptistery at Florence were called for. The designs of both are
exhibited side by side in the National Museum at Florence. We
may agree with the verdict of the commission which awarded the
first prize to Ghiberti and the second to Brunellesco.
Ghiberti's relief is noteworthy for its agreeable dignity, while
that of Brunellesco looks restless and laboured. Soon after
Brunellesco went to Rome and for many years explored its ancient
ruins, alone and with Donatello. The remains of the classic
buildings so enraptured him that he decided to make architecture
his lifework, instead of, as heretofore, and to a greater degree
in Santo Spirito, a occasional occupation. In the meantime the
much discussed problem of the completion of the Duomo (Santa
Maria del Fiore) of Florence seems to have awakened in him the
ambition to attain in this way undisputed supremacy in one of
plastic arts.
ARCHITECTURE
At the end of the thirteenth century Arnolfo di Cambio had begun
the construction of Santa Maria del Fiore substantially a Gothic
cathedral, and carried it as far as the dome whose span of forty
metres (one hundred and thirty eight and one-half feet), nearly
equal to that of the Pantheon, had deterred from its completion
all contemporary architects. In 1417 a conference of experts
failed to arrive at a solution. Brunellesco, who was present,
did not fully declared himself, but instead visited Rome again,
manifestly for the purpose of coming forward with greater
assurance. The following year (March, 1419) a meeting of the
most noted architects took place, and in the discussion relative
to the cathedral dome Brunellesco with full confidence purposed
to complete it without centering, since it was impossible to
construct scaffolding for such a height. At first, he was
regarded as a fool, but later was actually commissioned to
execute the work, with two other artists as associates. Whether
to harmonize it with the pointed arches of the rest of the
design or to relieve the substructure of the greater thrust,
Brunellesco built the dome not on spherical, but on pointed
octagonal, clustered-arches. He then braced it not only by means
of the octagonal drum, previously agreed on, but also borrowed
from Baptistery, besides its lantern, the idea of a protective
roof, not an ordinary roof, but a second and lighter dome. This
novel concept of a dome of two shells greatly relieved the
weight of the structure, gave to the exterior an agreeable
rounded finish, and in the space between the shells furnished
room for ribbing passageways, and stairs. In technical or
constructive skill the dome of St. Peter's marked no advance on
the work of Brunellesco; it is superior only in formal beauty.
The crowning lantern, statically important weight, adds sixteen
metres to the height of the dome which is ninety-one metres; it
is inadequate, however, to the lighting of the edifice.
Brunellesco's work remained in its essential features, a model
for succeeding ages. The lantern was not completed until five
years after the death of the master.
Inspired by classical art he executed other domical structures
and basilicas, in all of which the essential characteristics of
the new style appear. For the sacristy of San Lorenzo at
Florence he built its polygonal dome, without a drum, on a
square plan, by means of pendentives (projecting spherical
triangles). As a central feature for Santa Maria degli Angeli in
Florence, he designed a dome resting on a substructure,
octagonal on the interior and sixteen-sided on the exterior. On
a freestanding centralized plan he built a still more charming
structure, the Pazzi Chapel. Over the middle portion of the
rectangular hall a dome with radial ribbings is carried on
arches and flanked on two sides by barrel vaults. The square
sanctuary rises on the long side of this rectangular hall and is
covered with a dome. The corresponding square on the entrance
side is also domed; he added to it an antique colonnade covered
in by a barrel vault, thus forming a loggia that extends the
entire width of the building. The interior wall surfaces are
decorated with Corinthian pilasters. The straight entablature,
the rounded windows, the coffered ceiling, the medallions,
complete on a small scale an ideal Renaissance edifice. It is
probable that the cruciform and domical church of Badia di
Fiesole was built from Brunellesco's design. In all these works
he treated antique classical principles rather freely. In larger
churches his practical mind induced him to return to the
basilica plan. In San Lorenzo, it is true, he found the
cruciform plan already fixed; he added, however, a wooden
ceiling for the nave, spherical vaults for the side aisles, and
rectangular chapels with barrel vaults along the outer walls;
lateral aisles also surround the transept. The external cornice
is carried out in a straight line; the height of the nave is
double its width, the Corinthian columes bear the classical
triple entablature but the arches springing therefrom; to
increase the height these arches bear another broad triple
entablature. We are frequently reminded in this edifice of the
ancient Christan and Romanesque basilicas. Its dome was
completed by Monetti, who allowed himself here, and to a greater
degree in San Spirito, a certain liberty in dealing with the
designs of Brunellesco. The plan of the latter church is in the
main the same as that of San Lorenzo; the interior niches are
rounded, though their exterior walls are rectangular. These
niches follow the lateral aisles around the transepts and the
apse. Over the meeting of the great nave and apse rises a low
drum supporting a ribbed dome; it is finished with around
windows and a lantern. Brunellesco executed also no little
domestic architecture. He supervised the construction of the
Foundling Hospital (Spedale degli Innocenti) and drew the model
of a magnificent palace for Cosimo de' Medici which the latter
failed to carry out through fear of envy. Finally he built a
part of the Pitti Palace, and in this work left to posterity a
model method of the use of quarry-faced stone blocks for the
first story. In recognition of his merits this epoch-making
architect, no less distinguished in the decorative than sacred
precincts of the cathedral.
G. GIETTMANN
Ferdinand Brunetiere
Ferdinand Brunetière
A French critic and professor, born at Toulon, 19 July, 1849;
died at Paris, 9 December, 1906. After finishing his studies at
the Lycée Louis-le-Grand, he took the entrance examination of
the Ecole Normale, a higher training-school for teachers, but
failed on account of deficiency in Greek. When the Franco-German
war broke out, he enlisted in the heavy-armed infantry. After
the war he returned to Paris and led a very precarious life as a
teacher in private schools. In 1874, he began to write for the
"Revue des Deux Mondes", then edited by Charles Buloz, whose
principal associate he soon became. From the first he was an
opponent of the Naturalist School, which in retaliation feigned
to ignore him and declared that the name of Brunetière was the
pseudonym of some writer of no account. His mastery of criticism
and his immense and minute learning, which were combined with a
keen and cutting style, soon proved his intellectual power. The
editor-ship in chief of the "Revue des Deux Mondes" was tendered
to him in 1893. Although he had not attained the higher academic
degrees, he was appointed professor of the French language and
literature in the Ecole Normale in 1886, a position he held up
to 1905, when the school was reorganized. On account of his
conversion to Catholicism he was dropped from the list of
professors. He was elected to the French Academy in 1893.
In 1897, M. Brunetière lectured in the United States, under the
auspices of the Alliance Française. After delivering nine
lectures on French poetry in the annual course of the Percy
Turnbull lectures on poetry, at the Johns Hopkins University, he
travelled through the country speaking to enthusiastic audiences
on classical and contemporary literature. He met with a success
that no French lecturer before him had ever attained. In New
York more than three thousand persons gathered to hear him. His
most famous lecture was on Zola, whose so-called lifelike
pictures of the French bourgeois, of a workman, soldier, and
peasant, he described as gloomy, pessimistic, and calumnious
caricatures.
Brunetière was a French critic of the last twenty years of the
nineteenth century. His articles in the "Revue des Deux Mondes"
resemble a strongly framed building, without frivolous ornament,
majestic in proportion, impressive through solidity. They have
been published in about fifteen volumes bearing various titles,
as: "Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de la littérature
française"; "Questions de critique"; "Essais sur la littérature
contemporaine", etc. Brunetière was a dogmatist, judging literay
works not by the impression they made upon him, but according to
certain principles he had laid down as criteria. According to
his dogmatic system, literary work derives its value from the
general ideas it contains, and the originality of a writer
consists only in setting his own stamp upon a universal design.
A good survey of his ideas may be had from the "Manuel de la
littérature française" (tr. New York). This form of criticism
was more or less borrowed from Désiré Nisard. About the year
1889, M. Brunetière changed his method and applied to literature
the theories of evolution, explaining the formation, growth, and
decay of various literary genres in their development from a
common origin, by the same principles as those by which Darwin
explained the development of the animal species. (L'évolution
des genres; L'évolution de la poésie lyrique au XIXe siècle.)
However weak the basis of such a system may be, all the details
are interesting. In 1892 M. Brunetière showed himself a orator
of the highest rank. His lectures at the Odéon théâtre on "Les
époques du Theatre Francais" proved very successful. In 1893 he
delivered a course of public lectures at the Sorbonne on
"L'évolution des genres", and in 1894 on "Les sermons de
Bossuet". When he was deprived of his professorship at the Ecole
Normale, in 1905, he became ordinary lecturer to the Société des
Conférences. M. Brunetière was master of the difficult art of
convincing a large audience. He had all the qualities of a true
orator: clearness of exposition, strength and logic of
reasoning, an unusual command of general ideas, a fine and
penetrating voice, and above all, a certain strange power of
conviction which won the immediate sympathy of the most
prejudiced hearers.
M. Brunetière became a convert to Catholicism, in consequence of
long and thorough study of Bossuet's sermons, and, strange to
say, by a logical process of deductions which had been suggested
to him by Auguste Comte's philosophy. (See Discours de combat,
2d series, p. 3.) In giving up his materialistic opinions to
adopt the Catholic Faith he was prompted by a deep conviction,
and there was no emotional element in this radical change. The
article he wrote in 1895, "Après une visite au Vatican", augured
his conversion to catholicism. In this article, M. Brunetière
showed that science, in spite of its solemn promises, had failed
to give happiness to mankind, and that faith alone was able to
achieve that result. Soon after, M. Brunetière publicly adhered
to Catholicism and for ten years he made numerous speeches in
all parts of France, to defend his new faith against the
free-thinkers. Among these addresses may be mentioned: "Le
besoin de croire", Besancon, 1898; "Les raisons actuelles de
croire", Lille, 1899; "L'idée de solidarité", Toulouse, 1900;
"L'action catholique", Tours, 1901; "Les motifs d'esperer",
Lyons, 1901, etc. He devoted himself to this task with the
greatest energy, for he was naturally a man of will and a
fighter. The most interesting feature of his apology is his
attempt to show how much the positivism of Auguste Comte was
akin to Catholicism. He endeavoured to prove that modern thought
contained in itself, without suspecting it, the seed of
Catholicism. (see "Sur les chemins de la croyance. Primiere
etape, L'utilisation du positivisme".) On one occasion, in the
course of a discussion with a Socialist, he went so far as to
infer the identity of the social aspirations of Catholicism and
the aspirations of the Socialists for a general reform of the
world.
LOUIS N. DELAMARRE
Ugolino Brunforte
Ugolino Brunforte
Friar Minor and chronicler, born c. 1262; died c. 1348. His
father Rinaldo, Lord of Sarnano in the Marches, belonged to an
ancient and noble family of French origin, from which sprang the
famous Countess Matilda. Ugolino entered the Order of Friars
Minor at the age of sixteen and served his novitiate at the
convent of Roccabruna, but passed most of his life at the
convent of Santa Maria in Monte Giorgio, whence he is often
called Ugolino of Monte Giorgio. In 1295 he was chosen Bishop of
Abruzzi (Teramo) under Celestine V, but before his consecration
the pope had resigned and Boniface VIII who suspected Ugolino as
belonging to the Zelanti annulled the appointment (see Bull "In
Supremae Dignitatis Specula" in "Bullarium Francis", IV, 376.
Nearly fifty years later he was elected provincial of Macerata.
Most scholars are now agreed on fixing upon Ugolino as the
author of the "Fioretti" or "Little Flowers of St. Francis" in
their original form. For recent research has revealed that this
classic collection of narratives, which forms one of the most
delightful productions of the Middle Ages, or rather the
fifty-three chapters which form the true text of the "Fioretti"
(for the four appendixes are additions of later compilers) were
translated into Italian by an unknown fourteenth-century friar
from a larger Latin work attributed to Ugolino. Although this
Latin original has not come down to us, we have in the "Actus B.
Francisci et Sociorum Ejus", edited by Paul Sabatier in
"Collection d'Etudes" (Paris, 1902, IV), an approximation to it
which may be considered on the whole as representing the
original of the "Fioretti". That Ugolino was the principal
compiler of the "Actus" seems certain; how far he may be
considered the sole author of the "Fioretti" of the primitive
"Actus Fioretti" is not so clear. His labour which consisted
chiefly in gathering the flowers for his bouquet from written
and oral local tradition appears to have been completed before
1328.
WADDING, Script. ord. Min. (1650), 179; SBARALEA, Supplementum
(8106), addenda 727; LUIGI DA FABRIANO, Disquisizione istorica
intorno all' autore dei Fioretti (Fabriano, 1883); Cenni
cronologico-biografici dell' osservante Provincia Picena
(Quaracchi, 1886), 232 sqq.; MANZONI, Fioretti (2nd ed., Rome,
1902), prefazione; SABATIER, Fioretum S. Francisci (Paris,
1902), preface; MARIOTTI, Primordi Gloriosi dell' ordine
Minoritico nelle Marche (Castelplanio, 1903), VI; ARNOLD, The
Authorship of the Fioretti (London, 1904); PACE, L'autore del
Floretum in Rivista Abruzzese, ann. XIX, fasc. II; VAN ORTROY in
Annal. Bolland., XXI, 443 sqq.
PASCHAL ROBINSON
Leonardo Bruni
Leonardo Bruni
An eminent Italian humanist, b. of poor and humble parents at
Arezzo, the birthplace of Petrarch, in 1369; d. at Florence, 9
March, 1444. He is also called Aretino from the city of his
birth. Beginning at first the study of law, he later, under the
patronage of Salutato and the influence of the Greek scholar
Chrysoloras, turned his attention to the study of the classics.
In 1405 he obtained through his friend Poggio the post of
Apostolic secretary under Pope Innocent VII. He remained at Rome
for several years, continuing as secretary under Popes Gregory
XII and Alexander V. In 1410 he was elected Chancellor of the
Republic of Florence, but resigned the office after a few
months, returning to the papal court as secretary under John
XXIII, whom he afterwards accompanied to the Council of
Constance. On the deposition of that pope in 1415, Bruni
returned to Florence, where he spent the remaining years of his
life.
Here he wrote his chief work, a Latin history of Florence,
"Historiarium Florentinarum Libri XII" (Strasburg, 1610). In
recognition of this great work the State conferred upon him the
rights of citizenship and exempted the author and his children
from taxation. In 1427 through the favour of the Medici he was
again appointed state chancellor, a post which he held until his
death. During these seventeen years he performed many valuable
services to the State. Bruni contributed greatly to the revival
of Greek and Latin learning in Italy in the fifteenth century
and was foremost among the scholars of the Christian
Renaissance. He, more than any other man, made the treasures of
the Hellenic world accessible to the Latin scholar through his
literal translations into Latin of the works of Greek authors.
Among these may be mentioned his translations of Aristotle,
Plato, Plutarch, Demosthenes, and Æschines. These were
considered models of pure Latinity.
His original works include: "Commentarius Rerum Suo Tempore
Gestarum"; "De Romae Origine"; "De Bello Italico adversus
Gothos"; and ten volumes of letters, "Epistolae Familiares",
which, written in elegant Latin, are very valuable for the
literary history of the fifteenth century. He was also the
author of biographies in Italian of Dante and Petrarch and wrote
in Latin the lives of Cicero and Aristotle. So widespread was
the admiration for Bruni's talents that foreigners came from all
parts to see him. The great esteem in which he was held by the
Florentines was shown by the extraordinary public honors
accorded him at his death. His corpse was clad in dark silk, and
on his breast was laid a copy of his "History of Florence". In
the presence of many foreign ambassadors and the court of Pope
Eugenius, Manetti pronounced the funeral oration and placed the
crown of laurel upon his head. He was then buried at the expense
of the State in the cemetery of Santa Croce, where his
resting-place is marked by a monument executed by Rossellino.
Symonds, Renaissance in Italy (New York, 1900), II; The Revival
of Learning; Voight, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen
Altherthums (Berlin, 1893); the most complete ed. of Bruni's
works is that of Mehus (Florence, 1731).
EDMUND BURKE
Bruenn
Brünn
Suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of Olmutz, embracing the
south-western part of Moravia, an area of 3825 sq. m., and
containing, according to the "Catalogus cleri Dioceseos
Brunensis 1907", about 1,051,654 inhabitants, 1,000,607 of whom
are Catholics.
I. HISTORY
The erection of the Diocese of Brünn was due to Empress Maria
Theresa. The territory comprised in this diocese belonged from a
very early period to the Diocese of Olmutz. To obviate the
difficulties arising from the administration of such a vast
territory, Maria Theresa in 1773 entered into negotiations with
Pope Clement XIV. Olmutz was to be raised to the rank of an
archbishopric and two newly created bishoprics -- Brünn and
Troppau -- assigned it as suffragans. Eventually, however, only
one was created. By a papal Bull of Pius VI, dated 5 December,
1777, Olmutz was made an archbishopric and Brünn erected into an
episcopal see. The collegiate chapter of the provostship of Sts.
Peter and Paul which had been in existence in Brünn since 1296
was constituted the cathedral chapter, and the provost-church
was made the cathedral. Matthias Franz, Count von Chorinsky,
mitred provost of the chapter was appointed by the empress first
bishop. He was succeeded by Johann Baptist Lachenbauer
(1787-99), Vincenz Joseph von Schrattenbach (1800-16), Wenzel
Urban Ritter von Stuffler (1817-31), Franz Anton von Gindl
(1832-41), Anton Ernst, Count von Schaffgotsche (1842-70), Karl
Nöttig (1871-82), Franz Sales Bauer (1882-1904), since 1904
Archbishop of Olmutz, and Paulus, Count von Huyn, b. at Brünn,
1868, appointed bishop 17 April, 1904, and consecrated 26 June,
1904.
II. STATISTICS
For the cure of souls the diocese is divided into 7
archipresbyterates and 37 deaneries with 429 parishes and the
same number of parish churches, 30 simple benefices, 545 mission
churches (Filialkirchen) and oratories. In 1907 the number of
secular clergy was 751,612 engaged in the care of souls, 102 in
other offices (professors, military chaplains, etc.), and 47
retired from active duty; regulars, 101, of whom 54 are engaged
in the active ministry. The cathedral chapter consists of a
dean, an archdeacon, 4 canons capitular, 6 honorary canons, and
1 canon extra statum; the consistory is composed of 15 members.
In Nikolsburg there is a collegiate chapter with 6 canons and 4
honorary canons. The bishop and the 4 capitulars are appointed
by the emperor, the dean by the cathedral chapter, and the
archdeacon by the bishop. Among the benefices, 26 are by free
collation, 106 subject to appointment by administrators of the
religious fund, 8 by administrators of the fund for students, 23
by ecclesiastical patrons, 250 by lay families, 22 are
incorporated with monasteries, and 2 of mixed patronage. For the
training of the clergy there is a seminary, in connection with
which is a theological school with 11 ecclesiastical professors,
also an episcopal preparatory school for boys. In the
intermediate schools of the diocese 67 priests are engaged in
teaching religion, in the primary schools and intermediate
schools for girls 79 priests.
The following religious congregations have establishments in the
diocese: Men: Premonstratensians 1 abbey (Neureisch) with 12
priests; Benedictines 1 abbey in raigern (from which is issued
the well-known periodical "Studien u. Mitteilungen aus dem
Benediktiner-und Cistercienserorden"), with 20 fathers and 2
clerics; the Hermits of St. Augustine 1 foundation in Brünn,
with 16 priests and 5 clerics; the Piarists 1 college at
Nikolsburg with 2 fathers and 3 lay brothers; the Dominicans 1
monastery with 7 fathers and 7 brothers; the Franciscans 2
convents with 7 fathers and 5 brothers; the Minorites 1
monastery with 2 priests and 2 lay brothers; the Capuchins 3
monasteries with 9 fathers and 8 brothers; the Brothers of
Mercy, 2 foundations with 3 priests and 15 brothers. Women: 32
foundations and 379 sisters engaged in the education of girls
and the care of the sick: 1 Cistercian abbey (Tischnowitz)with
25 religious; 1 Ursuline convent with 21 sisters; 1 Elizabethan
convent with 19 sisters; 3 foundations of the Sisters of Mercy
of St. Vincent de Paul, with 34 sisters; 9 houses of the Sisters
of Mercy of St. Charles Borromeo, with 71 sisters; 2 houses of
the Daughters of the Divine Saviour with 26 sisters; 6 convents
of the Poor Sisters of Notre Dame with 35 sisters; 1 house of
Daughters of Divine Love, with 24 sisters; 1 mother-house and 5
branches of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, with
108 sisters, and 1 foundation of the Order of St. Hedwig, with 4
sisters. The above named congregations of women conduct 4
boarding schools for girls, 21 schools for girls, 6 hospitals, 4
orphan asylums, 13 creches, 5 hospital stations, 2 asylums for
aged women, 2 homes for the aged, 1 institution for the blind,
and 1 home for servant girls. Among the associations to be found
in the diocese may be mentioned: the Catholic Journeymen's Union
(Gesellenverein), 7; the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 9
conferences; the Association of Christian Social Workers, the
Apostolate of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the St. Joseph's Verein
for men and young men.
Chief among the churches of the diocese is the Cathedral of Sts.
Peter and Paul at Brünn; built between the thirteenth and
fifteenth century in Gothic style, it was destroyed in 1645,
rebuilt as a Renaissance structure (1743-80), remodeled in 1906
and two towers added. The stateliest and most beautiful Gothic
church of the diocese is the church of St. James at Brünn, begun
as early as the thirteenth century but completed only in 1511.
Other prominent ecclesiastical buildings are the church of St.
James at Iglau, erected 1230-43, with three naves, a spacious
choir, and a Roman portico; the Jesuit church at Brünn, erected
in 1582 in the Barocco style.
JOSEPH LINS
Francis de Sales Brunner
Francis de Sales Brunner
The founder of the Swiss-American congregation of the
Benedictines, b. 10 January, 1795, at Muemliswil, Switzerland;
d. at the Convent of Schellenberg, Duchy of Lichtenstein, 29
December, 1859. He received in baptism the name of Nicolaus
Joseph. After the death of his father he entered, 11July, 1812,
the Benedictine monastery near his residence in Maria Stein. He
made his vows two years later and studied for the priesthood
under the direction of the pious Abbot Pfluger. Ten years after
his ordination (1819) he felt a vocation for a stricter life and
joined the Trappists of Oehlemberg, also near his home. This
convent being suppressed, he offered his services for foreign
missions to Gregory XVI, and was to have gone as Apostolic
missionary to China, but shortly before the time set for his
departure the order was recalled. Next he founded a school for
poor boys in the castle of Löwenberg, which he had purchased
from the Count de Montfort. In 1833 with his mother he made a
pilgrimage to Rome, where they were both enrolled in the
Archconfraternity of the Most Precious Blood. Returned to
Lowenberg, his mother gathered around her pious virgins to "hold
a perpetual (day and night) adoration and dedicate their lives
to the education of orphans and the furnishing of vestments for
poor churches".
Thus began the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood; their
foundress died in 1836, and the community was brought to America
under the second mother superior, Sister Clara, who died in 1876
at Grunewald, Ohio. Meanwhile, in 1838, Father Brunner had made
a second visit to Rome, and had entered the Congregation of the
Most Precious Blood at Albano. After his novitiate he returned,
continued the work he had previously begun, and also began
educating boys for the priesthood, so as to inaugurate a German
province of the congregation. The Government interfering more
and more with his school, he accepted the invitation of
Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, brought to him by Monsignor
Henni, to establish his community in America. Accompanied by
eight priests, he landed, 21 December, 1843, at New Orleans and,
ascending the Ohio River, arrived at Cincinnati on New year's
Day. From Cincinnati they proceeded to St. Alphonsus, near
Norwalk, Ohio, where the first station was erected. Their
missionary circuit included all the Germans within a radius of
100 miles; they began to erect convents and parishes and
entrusted the schools to the Sisters of the most Precious Blood,
who had followed them on the 22nd of July, 1844. After this
Father Brunner made several trips to Europe in the interest of
his institution, and it was during the last of these that he
died. He was an indefatigable missionary and a very prolific
writer on religious subjects. Many of his writings, all of which
in German, still await publication.
U.F. MÜLLER
Sebastian Brunner
Sebastian Brunner
A versatile and voluminous writer, b. in Vienna, 10 December,
1814; d. there, 27 November, 1893. He received his college
education from the Benedictines of his native city, his
philosophical and theological training at the Vienna University,
was ordained priest in 1838, and was for some years professor in
the philosophical faculty of the Vienna University. The
University of Freiburg honored him with the degree of Doctor of
Theology. In the revolutionary year, 1848, he founded the
"Wienver Kirchenzeitung", which he edited until 1865, and in
which he scourged with incisive satire the Josephinist bondage
of the Church. It is mainly owing to his fearless championship,
which more than once brought him into conflict with the
authorities, that the Church in Austria to-day breathes more
freely. He wrote some ascetical books and many volumes of
sermons, also a biography of Clemens Hofbauer, the apostle of
Vienna. His books of travel dealing with Germany, France,
England, Switzerland, and especially Italy, are distinguished by
keen observations on men and manners, art and culture, and most
of all on religion, and are thus connected closely with his
apologetic and controversial writings. Among the latter may be
mentioned his book on "The Atheist Renan and his Gospel".
Brunner's voluminous historical works are very valuale,
particularly those on the history of the Church in Austria. It
is, however, as a humorist that Brunner takes a permanent place
in the history of literature, for he counts among the best
modern German humorous writers. His works of this class were
composed partly in verse, which at times reminds the reader of
Hudibras, and partly in the form of prose stories. One of the
best of the former is "Der Nebeljungen Lied"; of the latter,
"Die Prinzenschule zu Möpselglück". These works, conceived with
a high and noble purpose, are marked by brilliant satire,
inexhaustible wit, and genuine humour, combined with great depth
of feeling. A collection of his stories in prose and verse was
published in eighteen volumes at Ratisbon in 1864. It is not
surprising, though it is regrettable, that an author whose
literary output was so vast and varied, often shows signs of
haste and a lack of artistic finish. In his later years he
turned his satirical pen against the undiscriminating worship of
modern German literary celebrities.
Selbstiographie (Autobiography (Ratisbon, 1890-91)l Scheicher,
Sebastian Brunner (Wurzburg and Vienna, 1890); Lindemann,
Geschichte der deutschen Literatur (Freiburg im Br., 1898), 938,
939; Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, XLVII (Supplement, 1903),
s.v.
B. GULDNER
St. Bruno (1048-1123)
St. Bruno
Bishop of Segni, in Italy, born at Solero, Piedmont, about 1048;
died 1123. He received his preliminary education in a
Benedictine monastery of his native town. After completing his
studies at Bologna and receiving ordination, he was made a canon
of Sienna. In appreciation of his great learning and eminent
piety, he was called to Rome, where, as an able and prudent
counsellor, his advice was sought by four successive popes. At a
synod held in Rome in 1079 he obliged Berengarius of Tours, who
denied the real presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist to
retract his heresy. He enjoyed the personal friendship of
Gregory VII, and was consecrated Bishop of Segni by him in the
Campagna of Rome, in 1080. His humility caused him to decline
the cardinalate. He is called "the brilliant defender of the
church" because of the invincible courage he evinced in aiding
Gregory VII and the succeeding popes in their efforts for
ecclesiastical reform, and especially in denouncing lay
investiture, which he even declared to be heretical.
He accompanied Pope Urban II in 1095, to the Council of Clermont
in which the First Crusade was inaugurated. In 1102 he became a
monk of Monte Casino and was elected abbot in 1107, without,
however, resigning his episcopal charge. With many bishops of
Italy and France, Bruno rejected the treaty known in history as
the "Privilegium", which Henry V of Germany had extorted from
Pope Paschal II during his imprisonment. In a letter addressed
to the pope he very frankly censured him for concludmg a
convention which conceded to the German king in part the
inadmissible claim to the right of investiture of ring and
crosier upon bishops and abbots, and demanded that the treaty
should be annulled. Irritated by his opposition, Paschal II
commanded Bruno to give up his abbey and to return to his
episcopal see. With untiring zeal he continued to labour for the
welfare of his flock, as well as for the common interest of the
Church at large, till his death. He was canonized by Pope Lucius
III in 1183. His feast is celebrated on the 18th of July. St.
Bruno was the author of numerous works, chiefly Scriptural. Of
these are to be mentioned his commentaries on the Pentateuch,
the Book of Job, the Psalms, the four Gospels, and the
Apocalypse.
J.A. BIRKHAEUSER
St. Bruno (1030-1101)
St. Bruno
Confessor, ecclesiastical writer, and founder of the Carthusian
Order. He was born at Cologne about the year 1030; died 6
October, 1101. He is usually represented with a death's head in
his hands, a book and a cross, or crowned with seven stars; or
with a roll bearing the device O Bonitas. His feast is kept on
the 6th of October. According to tradition, St. Bruno belonged
to the family of Hartenfaust, or Hardebüst, one of the principal
families of the city, and it is in remembrance of this origin
that different members of the family of Hartenfaust have
received from the Carthusians either some special prayers for
the dead, as in the case of Peter Bruno Hartenfaust in 1714, and
Louis Alexander Hartenfaust, Baron of Laach, in 1740; or a
personal affiliation with the order, as with Louis Bruno of
Hardevüst, Baron of Laach and Burgomaster of the town of
Bergues-S. Winnoc, in the Diocese of Cambrai, with whom the
Hardevüst family in the male line became extinct on 22 March,
1784.
We have little information about the childhood and youth of St.
Bruno. Born at Cologne, he would have studied at the city
college, or collegial of St. Cunibert. While still quite young
(a pueris) he went to complete his education at Reims, attracted
by the reputation of the episcopal school and of its director,
Heriman. There he finished his classical studies and perfected
himself in the sacred sciences which at that time consisted
principally of the study of Holy Scriptures and of the Fathers.
He became there, according to the testimony of his
contemporaries, learned both in human and in Divine science. His
education completed, St. Bruno returned to Cologne, where he was
provided with a canonry at St. Cunibert's, and, according to the
most probable opinion, was elevated to the priestly dignity.
This was about the year 1055. In 1056 Bishop Gervais recalled
him to Reims, to aid his former master Heriman in the direction
of the school. The latter was already turning his attention
towards a more perfect form of life, and when he at last left
the world to enter the religious life, in 1057, St. Bruno found
himself head of the episcopal school, or écolâtre, a post
difficult as it was elevated, for it then included the direction
of the public schools and the oversight of all the educational
establishments of the diocese. For about twenty years, from 1057
to 1075, he maintained the prestige which the school of Reims
has attained under its former masters, Remi of Auxerre, Hucbald
of St. Amand, Gerbert, and lastly Heriman. Of the excellence of
his teaching we have a proof in the funereal titles composed in
his honour, which celebrate his eloquence, his poetic,
philosophical, and above all his exegetical and theological,
talents; and also in the merits of his pupils, amongst whom were
Eudes of Châtillon, afterwards Urban II, Rangier, Cardinal and
Bishop of Reggio, Robert, Bishop of Langres, and a large number
of prelates and abbots.
In 1075 St. Bruno was appointed chancellor of the church of
Reims, and had then to give himself especially to the
administration of the diocese. Meanwhile the pious Bishop
Gervais, friend of St. Bruno, had been succeeded by Manasses de
Gournai, who quickly became odious for his impiety and violence.
The chancellor and two other canons were commissioned to bear to
the papal legate, Hugh of Die, the complaints of the indignant
clergy, and at the Council of Autun, 1077, they obtained the
suspension of the unworthy prelate. The latter's reply was to
raze the houses of his accusers, confiscate their goods, sell
their benefices, and appeal to the pope. Bruno then absented
himself from Reims for a while, and went probably to Rome to
defend the justice of his cause. It was only in 1080 that a
definite sentence, confirmed by a rising of the people,
compelled Manasses to withdraw and take refuge with the Emperor
Henry IV. Free then to choose another bishop, the clergy were on
the point of uniting their vote upon the chancellor. He,
however, had far different designs in view. According to a
tradition preserved in the Carthusian Order, Bruno was persuaded
to abandon the world by the sight of a celebrated prodigy,
popularized by the brush of Lesueur--the triple resurrection of
the Parisian doctor, Raymond Diocres. To this tradition may be
opposed the silence of contemporaries, and of the first
biographers of the saint; the silence of Bruno himself in his
letter to Raoul le Vert, Provost of Reims; and the impossibility
of proving that he ever visited Paris. He had no need of such an
extraordinary argument to cause him to leave the world. Some
time before, when in conversation with two of his friends, Raoul
and Fulcius, canons of Reims like himself, they had been so
enkindled with the love of God and the desire of eternal goods
that they had made a vow to abandon the world and to embrace the
religious life. This vow, uttered in 1077, could not be put into
execution until 1080, owing to various circumstances.
The first idea of St. Bruno on leaving Reims seems to have been
to place himself and his companions under the direction of an
eminent solitary, St. Robert, who had recently (1075) settled at
Molesme in the Diocese of Langres, together with a band of other
solitaries who were later on (1098) to form the Cistercian
Order. But he soon found that this was not his vocation, and
after a short sojourn at Sèche-Fontaine near Molesme, he left
two of his companions, Peter and Lambert, and betook himself
with six others to Hugh of Châteauneuf, Bishop of Grenoble, and,
according to some authors, one of his pupils. The bishop, to
whom God had shown these men in a dream, under the image of
seven stars, conducted and installed them himself (1084) in a
wild spot on the Alps of Dauphiné named Chartreuse, about four
leagues from Grenoble, in the midst of precipitous rocks and
mountains almost always covered with snow. With St. Bruno were
Landuin, the two Stephens of Bourg and Die, canons of St. Rufus,
and Hugh the Chaplain, "all, the most learned men of their
time", and two laymen, Andrew and Guerin, who afterwards became
the first lay brothers. They built a little monastery where they
lived in deep retreat and poverty, entirely occupied in prayer
and study, and frequently honoured by the visits of St. Hugh who
became like one of themselves. Their manner of life has been
recorded by a contemporary, Guibert of Nogent, who visited them
in their solitude. (De Vitâ suâ, I, ii.)
Meanwhile, another pupil of St. Bruno, Eudes of Châtillon, had
become pope under the name of Urban II (1088). Resolved to
continue the work of reform commenced by Gregory VII, and being
obliged to struggle against the antipope, Guibert of Ravenna,
and the Emperor Henry IV, he sought to surround himself with
devoted allies and called his ancient master ad Sedis
Apostolicae servitium. Thus the solitary found himself obliged
to leave the spot where he had spent more than six years in
retreat, followed by a part of his community, who could not make
up their minds to live separated from him (1090). It is
difficult to assign the place which he then occupied at the
pontifical court, or his influence in contemporary events, which
was entirely hidden and confidential. Lodged in the palace of
the pope himself and admitted to his councils, and charged,
moreover, with other collaborators, in preparing matters for the
numerous councils of this period, we must give him some credit
for their results. But he took care always to keep himself in
the background, and although he seems to have assisted at the
Council of Benevento (March, 1091), we find no evidence of his
having been present at the Councils of Troja (March, 1093), of
Piacenza (March, 1095), or of Clermont (November, 1095). His
part in history is effaced. All that we can say with certainty
is that he seconded with all his power the sovereign pontiff in
his efforts for the reform of the clergy, efforts inaugurated at
the Council of Melfi (1089) and continued at that of Benevento.
A short time after the arrival of St. Bruno, the pope had been
obliged to abandon Rome before the victorious forces of the
emperor and the antipope. He withdrew with all his court to the
south of Italy.
During the voyage, the former professor of Reims attracted the
attention of the clergy of Reggio in further Calabria, which had
just lost its archbishop Arnulph (1090), and their votes were
given to him. The pope and the Norman prince, Roger, Duke of
Apulia, strongly approved of the election and pressed St. Bruno
to accept it. In a similar juncture at Reims he had escaped by
flight; this time he again escaped by causing Rangier, one of
his former pupils, to be elected, who was fortunately near by at
the Benedictine Abbey of La Cava near Salerno. But he feared
that such attempts would be renewed; moreover he was weary of
the agitated life imposed upon him, and solitude ever invited
him. He begged, therefore, and after much trouble obtained, the
pope's permission to return again to his solitary life. His
intention was to rejoin his brethren in Dauphiné, as a letter
addressed to them makes clear. But the will of Urban II kept him
in Italy, near the papal court, to which he could be called at
need. The place chosen for his new retreat by St. Bruno and some
followers who had joined him was in the Diocese of Squillace, on
the eastern slope of the great chain which crosses Calabria from
north to south, and in a high valley three miles long and two in
width, covered with forest. The new solitaries constructed a
little chapel of planks for their pious reunions and, in the
depths of the woods, cabins covered with mud for their
habitations. A legend says that St. Bruno whilst at prayer was
discovered by the hounds of Roger, Great Count of Sicily and
Calabria and uncle of the Duke of Apulia, who was then hunting
in the neighbourhood, and who thus learnt to know and venerate
him; but the count had no need to wait for that occasion to know
him, for it was probably upon his invitation that the new
solitaries settled upon his domains. That same year (1091) he
visited them, made them a grant of the lands they occupied, and
a close friendship was formed between them. More than once St.
Bruno went to Mileto to take part in the joys and sorrows of the
noble family, to visit the count when sick (1098 and 1101), and
to baptize his son Roger (1097), the future Kind of Sicily. But
more often it was Roger who went into the desert to visit his
friends, and when, through his generosity, the monastery of St.
Stephen was built, in 1095, near the hermitage of St. Mary,
there was erected adjoining it a little country house at which
he loved to pass the time left free from governing his State.
Meanwhile the friends of St. Bruno died one after the other:
Urban II in 1099; Landuin, the prior of the Grand Chartreuse,
his first companion, in 1100; Count Roger in 1101. His own time
was near at hand. Before his death he gathered for the last time
his brethren round him and made in their presence a profession
of the Catholic Faith, the words of which have been preserved.
He affirms with special emphasis his faith in the mystery of the
Holy Trinity, and in the real presence of Our Saviour in the
Holy Eucharist--a protestation against the two heresies which
had troubled that century, the tritheism of Roscelin, and the
impanation of Berengarius. After his death, the Carthusians of
Calabria, following a frequent custom of the Middle Ages by
which the Christian world was associated with the death of its
saints, dispatched a rolliger, a servant of the convent laden
with a long roll of parchment, hung round his neck, who passed
through Italy, France, Germany, and England. He stopped at the
principal churches and communities to announce the death, and in
return, the churches, communities, or chapters inscribed upon
his roll, in prose or verse, the expression of their regrets,
with promises of prayers. Many of these rolls have been
preserved, but few are so extensive or so full of praise as that
about St. Bruno. A hundred and seventy-eight witnesses, of whom
many had known the deceased, celebrated the extent of his
knowledge and the fruitfulness of his instruction. Strangers to
him were above all struck by his great knowledge and talents.
But his disciples praised his three chief virtues--his great
spirit of prayer, an extreme mortification, and a filial
devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Both the churches built by him
in the desert were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin: Our Lady of
Casalibus in Dauphiné, Our Lady Della Torre in Calabria; and,
faithful to his inspirations, the Carthusian Statutes proclaim
the Mother of God the first and chief patron of all the houses
of the order, whoever may be their particular patron.
St. Bruno was buried in the little cemetery of the hermitage of
St. Mary, and many miracles were worked at his tomb. He had
never been formally canonized. His cult, authorized for the
Carthusian Order by Leo X in 1514, was extended to the whole
church by Gregory XV, 17 February, 1623, as a semi-double feast,
and elevated to the class of doubles by Clement X, 14 March,
1674. St. Bruno is the popular saint of Calabria; every year a
great multitude resort to the Charterhouse of St. Stephen, on
the Monday and Tuesday of Pentecost, when his relics are borne
in procession to the hermitage of St. Mary, where he lived, and
the people visit the spots sanctified by his presence. An
immense number of medals are struck in his honour and
distributed to the crowd, and the little Carthusian habits,
which so many children of the neighbourhood wear, are blessed.
He is especially invoked, and successfully, for the deliverance
of those possessed.
As a writer and founder of an order, St. Bruno occupies an
important place in the history of the eleventh century. He
composed commentaries on the Psalms and on the Epistles of St.
Paul, the former written probably during his professorship at
Reims, the latter during his stay at the Grande Chartreuse if we
may believe an old manuscript seen by Mabillon--"Explicit
glosarius Brunonis heremitae super Epistolas B. Pauli." Two
letters of his still remain, also his profession of faith, and a
short elegy on contempt for the world which shows that he
cultivated poetry. The "Commentaries" disclose to us a man of
learning; he knows a little Hebrew and Greek and uses it to
explain, or if need be, rectify the Vulgate; he is familiar with
the Fathers, especially St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, his
favourites. "His style", says Dom Rivet, "is concise, clear,
nervous and simple, and his Latin as good as could be expected
of that century: it would be difficult to find a composition of
this kind at once more solid and more luminous, more concise and
more clear". His writings have been published several times: at
Paris, 1509-24; Cologne, 1611-40; Migne, Latin Patrology, CLII,
CLIII, Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1891. The Paris edition of 1524 and
those of Cologne include also some sermons and homilies which
may be more justly attributed to St. Bruno, Bishop of Segni. The
Preface of the Blessed Virgin has also been wrongly ascribed to
him; it is long anterior, though he may have contributed to
introduce it into the liturgy.
St. Bruno's distinction as the founder of an order was that he
introduced into the religious life the mixed form, or union of
the eremitical and cenobite modes of monasticism, a medium
between the Camaldolese Rule and that of St. Benedict. He wrote
no rule, but he left behind him two institutions which had
little connection with each other--that of Dauphiné and that of
Calabria. The foundation of Calabria, somewhat like the
Camaldolese, comprised two classes of religious: hermits, who
had the direction of the order, and cenobites who did not feel
called to the solitary life; it only lasted a century, did not
rise to more than five houses, and finally, in 1191, united with
the Cistercian Order. The foundation of Grenoble, more like the
rule of St. Benedict, comprised only one kind of religious,
subject to a uniform discipline, and the greater part of whose
life was spent in solitude, without, however, the complete
exclusion of the conventual life. This life spread throughout
Europe, numbered 250 monasteries, and in spite of many trials
continues to this day.
The great figure of St. Bruno has been often sketched by artists
and has inspired more than one masterpiece: in sculpture, for
example, the famous statue by Houdon, at St. Mary of the Angels
in Rome, "which would speak if his rule did not compel him to
silence"; in painting, the fine picture by Zurbaran, in the
Seville museum, representing Urban II and St. Bruno in
conference; the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin to St. Bruno,
by Guercino at Bologna; and above all the twenty-two pictures
forming the gallery of St. Bruno in the museum of the Louvre, "a
masterpiece of Le Sueur and of the French school".
AMBROSE MOUGEL
Giordano Bruno
Giordano Bruno
Italian philosopher, b. at Nola in Campania, in the Kingdom of
Naples, in 1548; d. at Rome, 1600. At the age of eleven he went
to Naples, to study "humanity, logic, and dialectic", and, four
years later, he entered the Order of St. Dominic, giving up his
worldly name of Filippo and taking that of Giordano. He made his
novitiate at Naples and continued to study there. In 1572 he was
ordained priest.
It seems, however, that, even as a novice, he attracted
attention by the originality of his views and by his outspoken
criticism of accepted theological doctrines. After his
ordination things reached such a pass that, in 1576, formal
accusation of heresy was brought against him. Thereupon he went
to Rome, but, apparently, did not mend his manner of speaking of
the mysteries of faith; for the accusations were renewed against
him at the convent of the Minerva. Within a few months of his
arrival he fled the city and cast off all allegiance to his
order.
From this point on, his life-story is the tale of his wanderings
from one country to another and of his failure to find peace
anywhere. He tarried awhile in several Italian cities, and in
1579 went to Geneva, where he seems to have adopted the
Calvinist faith, although afterwards, before the ecclesiastical
tribunal at Venice, he steadfastly denied that he had ever
joined the Reformed Church. This much at least is certain; he
was excommunicated by the Calvinist Council on account of his
disrespectful attitude towards the heads of that Church and was
obliged to leave the city. Thence he went to Toulouse, Lyons,
and (in 1581) to Paris.
At Lyons he completed his "Clavis Magna", or "Great Key" to the
art of remembering. In Paris he published several works which
further developed his art of memory-training and revealed the
two-fold influence of Raymond Lully and the neo-Platonists. In
1582 he published a characteristic work, "Il candelaio", or "The
Torchbearer", a satire in which he exhibits in a marked degree
the false taste then in vogue among the humanists, many of whom
mistook obscenity for humour. While at Paris he lectured
publicly on philosophy, under the auspices, as it seems, of the
College of Cambrai, the forerunner of the College of France.
In 1583 he crossed over to England, and, for a time at least,
enjoyed the favour of Queen Elizabeth and the friendship of Sir
Philip Sidney. To the latter he dedicated the most bitter of his
attacks on the Catholic Church, "Il spaccio della bestia
trionfante", "The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast", published
in 1584. He visited Oxford, and, on being refused the privilege
of lecturing there, he published (1584) his "Cena delle ceneri",
or "Ash-Wednesday Supper", in which he attacked the Oxford
professors, saying that they knew more about beer than about
Greek. In 1585 he returned to France, and during the year which
he spent in Paris at this time made several attempts to become
reconciled to the Catholic Church, all of which failed because
of his refusal to accept the condition imposed, namely, that he
should return to his order.
In Germany, whither he went in 1587, he showed the same spirit
of insolent self-assertion as at Oxford. In Helmstadt he was
excommunicated by the Lutherans. After some time spent in
literary activity at Frankfort, he went, in 1591, to Venice at
the invitation of Mocenigo, who professed to be interested in
his system of memory-training. Failing to obtain from Bruno the
secret of his "natural magic", Mocenigo denounced him to the
Inquisition. Bruno was arrested, and in his trial before the
Venetian inquisitors first took refuge in the principle of
"two-fold truth", saying that the errors imputed to him were
held by him "as a philosopher, and not as an honest Christian";
later, however, he solemnly abjured all his errors and doubts in
the matter of Catholic doctrine and practice (Berti, Docum.,
XII, 22 and XIII, 45). At this point the Roman Inquisition
intervened and requested his extradition. After some hesitation
the Venetian authorities agreed, and in February, 1593, Bruno
was sent to Rome, and for six years was kept in the prison of
the Inquisition. Historians have striven in vain to discover the
explanation of this long delay on the part of the Roman
authorities. In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a
commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had
been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his
errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to
the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the
Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). Bruno was not condemned
for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for
his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his
theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ
was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the
Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be
saved, etc.
To the works of Bruno already mentioned the following are to be
added: "Della causa, principio ed uno"; "Dell' infinito universo
e dei mondi"; "De Compendiosâ Architecturâ"; "De Triplici
Minimo"; "De Monade, Numero et Figurâ." In these "the Nolan"
expounds a system of philosophy in which the principal elements
are neo-Platonism, materialistic monism, rational mysticism
(after the manner of Raymond Lully), and the naturalistic
concept of the unity of the material world (inspired by the
Copernican astronomy). His attitude towards Aristotle is best
illustrated by his reiterated assertion that the natural
philosophy of the Stagirite is vitiated by the predominance of
the dialectical over the mathematical mode of conceiving natural
phenomena. Towards the Scholastics in general his feeling was
one of undisguised contempt; he excepted, however, Albert tbe
Great and St. Thomas, for whom he always maintained a high
degree of respect. He wished to reform the Aristotelean
philosophy, and yet he was bitterly opposed to his
contemporaries, Ramus and Patrizzi, whose efforts were directed
towards the same obect. He was acquainted, though only in a
superficial way, with the writings of the pre-Socratic
philosophers of Greece, and with the works of the
neo-Platonists, especially with the books falsely attributed to
Iamblichus and Plotinus. From the neo-Platonists he derived the
tendency of his thought towards monism. From the pre-Socratic
philosophers he borrowed the materialistic interpretation of the
One. From the Copernican doctrine, which was attracting so much
attention in the century in which he lived, he learned to
identify the material One with the visible, infinite,
heliocentric universe.
Thus, his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic
pantheism. God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body
and soul, are two phases of the same substance; the universe is
infinite; beyond the visible world there is an infinity of other
worlds, each of which is inhabited; this terrestrial globe has a
soul; in fact, each and every part of it, mineral as well as
plant and animal, is animated; all matter is made up of the same
elements (no distinction between terrestrial and celestial
matter); all souls are akin (transmigration is, therefore, not
impossible). This unitary point of view is Bruno's justification
of "natural magic." No doubt, the attempt to establish a
scientific continuity among all the phenomena of nature is an
important manifestation of the modern spirit, and interesting,
especially on account of its appearance at the moment when the
medieval point of view was being abandoned. And one can readily
understand how Bruno's effort to establish a unitary concept of
nature commanded the admiration of such men as Spinoza, Jacobi,
and Hegel. On the other hand, the exaggerations, the
limitations, and the positive errors of his scientific system;
his intolerance of even those who were working for the reforms
to which he was devoted; the false analogies, fantastic
allegories, and sophistical reasonings into which his emotional
fervour often betrayed him have justified, in the eyes of many,
Bayle's characterization of him as "the knight-errant of
philosophy." His attitude of mind towards religious truth was
that of a rationalist. Personally, he failed to feel any of the
vital significance of Christianity as a religious system. It was
not a Roman Inquisitor, but a Protestant divine, who said of him
that he was "a man of great capacity, with infinite knowledge,
but not a trace of religion."
The latest edition of Bruno's works is by Tocco, Opere latine di
G. B. (Florence, 1889); Opere inedite (Naples, 1891); (Leipzig,
1829, 1830). See also: McIntyre, Giordano Bruno (London and New
York, 1903); Frith, Life of G. B. (London and Boston, 1887);
Adamson in Development of Modern Philosophy (London, 1903), II,
23-44; Höffding, Hist. of Modern Philosophy, tr. Meyer (London,
1900), I, 110 sqq.; Stöckl, Gesch. der Phil. des Mittelalters
(Mainz, 1866), III, 106 sqq.; Turner, Hist. of Phil. (Boston,
1903), 429 sqq.
WILLIAM TURNER
St. Bruno of Querfurt
St. Bruno of Querfurt
(Also called BRUN and BONIFACE).
Second Apostle of the Prussians and martyr, born about 970; died
14 February, 1009. He is generally represented with a hand cut
off, and is commemorated on 15 October. Bruno was a member of
the noble family of Querfurt and is commonly said to have been a
relative of the Emperor Otto III, although Hefele (in
Kirchenlex., II, s.v. Bruno) emphatically denies this. When
hardly six years old he was sent to Archbishop Adalbert of
Magdeburg to be educated and had the learned Geddo as his
teacher in the cathedral school. He was a well-behaved,
industrious scholar, while still a lad he was made a canon of
the cathedral. The fifteen year-old Otto III became attached to
Bruno, made him one of his court, and took him to Rome when the
young emperor went there in 996 to be crowned. At Rome Bruno
became acquainted with St. Adalbert Archbishop of Prague, who
was murdered a year later by the pagan Prussians to whom he had
gone as a missionary. After Adalbert's death Bruno was tied with
an intense desire for martyrdom. He spent much of has time in
the monastery on the Aventine where Adalbert had become a monk,
and where Abbot Johannes Canaparius wrote a life of Adalbert.
Bruno, however, did not enter the monastic life here, but in the
monastery of Pereum, an island in the swamps near Ravenna.
Pereum was under the rule of the founder of the Camaldoli
reform, St. Romuald, a saint who had great influence over the
Emperor Otto III. Under the guidance of St. Romuald Bruno
underwent a severe ascetic training; it included manual work,
fasting all week except Sunday and Thursday, night vigils, and
scourging on the bare back; in addition Bruno suffered greatly
from fever. He found much pleasure in the friendship of a
brother of the same age as himself, Benedict of Benevento, who
shared his cell and who was one with him in mind and spirit. The
Emperor Otto III desired to convert the lands; between the EIbe
and the Oder, which were occupied by Slavs, to Christianity, and
to plant colonies there. He hoped to attain these ends through
the aid of a monastery to be founded in this region by some of
the most zealous of Romuald's pupils. In 1001, therefore,
Benedict another brother of the same monastery, Joannes, went,
laden with gifts from the emperor, to Poland, where they were
well received by the Christian Duke Boleslas, who taught them
the language of the people. During this time Bruno studied the
language of Italy, where he remained with Otto and awaited the
Apostolic appointment by the pope. Sylvester II made him
archbishop over the heathen and gave him the pallium, but left
the consecration to the Archbishop of Magdeburg, who had the
supervision of the mission to the Slavs. Quiting Rome in 1003,
Bruno was consecrated in February, 1004, by Archbishop Tagino of
Magdeburg and gave his property for the founding of a monastery.
As war has broken out between Emperor Henry II and the Polish
Duke, Bruno was not able to go at once to Poland; so, starting
from Ratisbon on the Danube, he went into Hungary, where St.
Alalbert had also laboured. Here he finished his life of St.
Adalbert, a literary memorial of much worth.
Bruno sought to convert the Hungarian ruler Achtum and his
principality of "Black-Hungary", but he met with so much
opposition, including that of the Greek monks, that success was
impossible. In December, 1007, he went to Russia. Here the Grand
duke Vladimir entertained him for a month and then gave him a
territory extending to the possessions of the Petschenegen, who
lived on the Black Sea between the Danube and the Don. This was
considered the fiercest and most cruel of the heathen tribes.
Bruno spent five months among them, baptized some thirty adults,
aided in bringing about a treaty of peace with Russia, and left
in that country one of his companions whom he had consecrated
bishop. About the middle of the year 1008 he returned to Poland
and there consecrated a bishop for Sweden. While in Poland he
heard that his friend Benedict and four companions had been
killed by robbers on 11 May, 1003. Making use of the accounts of
eyewitnesses, he wrote the touching history of the lives and
death of the so-called Polish brothers. Towards the end of 1008
he wrote a memorable, but ineffectual, letter to the Emperor
Henry II, exhorting him to show clemency and to conclude a peace
with Boleslas of Poland. Near the close of this same year,
accompanied by eighteen companions, he went to found a mission
among the Prussians, but the soil was not fruitful, and Bruno
and his companions travelled towards the borders of Russia,
preaching courageously as they went. On the borders of Russia
they were attacked by the heathen, the whole company were
murdered, Bruno with great composure meeting death by
decapitation. Duke Boleslas bought the bodies of the slain and
had them brought to Poland. It is said that the city of
Braunsberg is named after St. Bruno.
Soon after the time of their death St. Bruno and his companions
were reverenced as martyrs. Little value is to be attached to a
legendary account of the martyrdom by a certain Wipert. Bruno's
fellow-pupil, Dithmar, or Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg, gives a
brief account of him in his Chronicle. VI, 58.
GABRIEL MEIER
Bruno the Saxon
Bruno the Saxon
(SAXONICUS.)
A German chronicler of the eleventh Century and author of the
"Historia de Bello Saxonico". Little is known of his life. He
was apparently a Saxon monk belonging to the household of
Archbishop Werner, of Magdeburg, who was a vigorous opponent of
Henry IV and one of the leaders of the Saxon uprising against
the emperor. After the death of the archbishop in 1078 at the
hands of peasants, Bruno attached himself to Werner, Bishop of
Merseburg, to whom, in 1082, he dedicated the work, "De Bello
Saxonico" by which he is chiefly known. As its name indicates,
it is a record of the struggles of the Saxons with the Emperor
Henry IV. The author begins with an account of the youth of
Henry and the evil influence exerted over him by Adalbert of
Bremen after he had passed from the stern tutelage of Anno,
Archbishop of Cologne. He then traces the relations of the
emperor with the Saxons and narrates at length the causes and
events of the rebellion, ending with the election of Hermann of
Luxemburg as king in 1081.
There has been a difference of opinion regarding the historical
value of Bruno's work. It was written during the contentions
between Henry and Gregory VII, and the author has been classed
with those partisans who, either through ignorance or malice,
endeavoured to lower Henry in the esteem of his subjects
(Stenzel). Bruno indeed supported the pope's cause, and his
Saxon sympathies manifest themselves at times in his writings,
but of his sincerity and his expressed purpose to narrate the
truth there can be no doubt. He made the most of his sources of
information and, in spite of occasional omissions, gives a vivid
picture of the times from the point of view of an interested
contemporary. The letters of Saxon bishops and other original
documents which he includes in his history give an added value
to the work. The text of the "De Bello Saxonico" is given in the
"Monum. Germ. Hist." (Pertz, Hanover, 1848), V. 327-384. A
German translation, with an introduction, was published by W.
Wattenbach (Berlin, 1853). For an extended, though not unbiased,
history of the time, cf. Stenzel, "Geschichte Deutschlands unter
den frankischen Kaisen", (Leipzig, 1827).
HENRY M. BROCK
Brunswick (Braunschweig)
Brunswick (Braunschweig)
A duchy situated in the mountainous central part of Northern
Germany, comprising the region of the Harz mountains.
Territorially, the duchy is not a unit, but parcelled into three
large, and six smaller, sections. Both in extent of territory
and in population it ranks tenth among the confederated states
of the German Empire. The inhabitants are of the Lower Saxon
race. The census of 1900 enumerated 464,333 inhabitants. Of
these 432,570 were Lutherans, 4406 Reformed, 24,175 Catholics,
and 1824 Jews. The Government is a constitutional monarchy,
hereditary in the male line of the House of Brunswick-Luneberg.
The elder line having become extinct in 1884 by the death of
Duke Wilhelm, the younger line, represented by the Duke of
Cumberland, should have succeeded to the throne. For political
reasons, however, Prussia objected to his taking possession, and
by decree of the Bundesrat he was excluded. The present regent,
chosen by the legislature, is Duke Johann Albrecht of
Mecklenberg. Agriculture, industries, and commerce are highly
developed in the duchy. It is stated that the first potatoes
raised in Germany were planted in Brunswick from five of the
tubers brought to Europe by Francis Drake. The town Brunswick
(Brunonis vicus, Bruno's village), which has given its name to
the duchy, was founded in the second half of the ninth century.
The country was part of the allodial lands of Henry the Lion.
After his defeat and exile in 1180, he lost all his possessions.
Brunswick, however, was restored to his grandson Otto, who was
made first Duke of Brunswick by Frederick II. In the fourteenth
century the town became a centre of the Hanseatic League, as
well as of the confederation of the Lower Saxon towns.
Christianity dates from Charlemagne's conquest of the Saxon
country of which Brunswick is a part. Charlemagne found and
destroyed an ancient German idol in the place where now
Brunswick stands. At Kissenbruck many of the conquered Saxons
were baptized. During the Middle Ages the country was partly
under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Halberstadt, partly
under that of Hildesheim. At the end of the eighth and the
beginning of the ninth century St. Ludger laboured in the
neighbourhood of Helmstedt, where he founded a monastery. The
pious Duke of Eastphalia and his devout wife founded, in 852,
the monastery of Brunshausen, near Gandersheim, for Benedictine
nuns, where his daughter Hathumod was first abbess. It was her
brother Bruno who some years later founded the town of
Brunswick. When, in 881, the church and monastery of Gandersheim
were completed, the community was transferred thither, under the
abbess Gerberga, sister of Hathumod. This monastery reached its
highest point of prosperity in the tenth century, as is shown by
the life of Hrotswitha, the celebrated "nun of Gandersheim", who
sang the praises of Otto the Great and wrote Latin comedies
after the manner of Terence. Other Benedictine monasteries
founded in the eleventh and twelfth centuries were Steterburg,
Lutter, and Clus. The great Cistercian Order also flourished in
Brunswick. The three monasteries of Amelungsborn, Marienthal,
and Riddaghausen were founded in the twelfth century. The
Augustinians also had a monastery for men and one for women at
Helmstedt.
In the town of Brunswick religion flourished from an early
period. Among the older monasteries should be mentioned St.
Blasius and St. Cyriacus, also the Benedictine monastery built
in honour of St. Autor, whose relics were brought from Trier,
and who became the patron saint of the town. In the twelfth
century Henry the Lion did much for his town of Brunswick. He
rebuilt some monasteries and erected several churches. The
Franciscans made a foundation in the town in the thirteenth, the
Dominicans, early in the fourteenth, century. The town also
possessed several hospitals and Beguinages. Mention must here be
made of the great reform of monasteries which was wrought in
North Germany in the fifteenth century. The celebrated reformer
of monasteries, Johannes Busch, canon regular of Windesheim,
extended his beneficent labours to Brunswick. The Benedictine
Congregation of Bursfeld, which at the end of the fifteenth
century counted 142 monasteries, may be said to have sprung from
the monastery of Clus near Gandersheim. (See Bursfeld.)
With regard to the religious revolution of the sixteenth century
it will be necessary to consider the town of Brunswick
separately. It was a proud and rich town and had long sought to
make itself independent of the authority of its dukes. Hence the
revolutionary doctrines of the Reformers were readily accepted
by the townsmen. Lutheranism was introduced as early as 1521,
and firmly established by Burgenhagen in 1528, not without
ruthless fanaticism. In the country, however, Duke Henry's
authority prevailed, and the Reformers gained no foothold until
1542, when, owing to the victory of the Smalkaldic League, the
duke fell into captivity, Bugenhagen was recalled, and the
external observance of the new religion was forced upon the
people with much violence and cruelty. When Henry recovered his
duchy, in 1547, he re-established the Catholic religion. His son
and successor made the whole district Lutheran, and it has since
remained a Protestant stronghold. Duke Julius did not destroy
all the monasteries, but allowed many of them to persist as
so-called Protestant convents. Among these was the once
celebrated Gandersheim which was only suppressed during the
general spoliation and secularization of 1802. Prominent among
the Dukes of Brunswick in post-Reformation times is Anton
Ulrich, said to have been the most learned prince of his time, a
patron of the arts and sciences, himself a poet, and a student
of the early Fathers. He took a lively interest in the movement
for the reconciliation of the Protestant sects with the Church,
the same movement with which Leibniz was identified. Early in
1710 the duke abjured Protestantism and a few months later
published his "Fifty Reasons Why the Catholic Church is
Preferable to Protestantism". (See Räss, Convertiten, IX.) Two
of his daughters followed him into the Catholic Church. The only
result of his conversion so far as the duchy was concerned was
his erection of two Catholic churches, one in Brunswick, the
other in Wolfenbuttel, to which according to his desire
Franciscans were appointed.
Pope Gregory XVI placed the Catholics of the Duchy of Brunswick
under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Hildesheim. They are
merely tolerated in the duchy. The Constitution of 1832, it is
true, granted liberty of conscience and the rights of public
worship, but subjected all churches to the "supervision of the
Government", that is to say, of the Lutheran church authorities.
The law of 1848 brought little relief to the Catholics. No
ecclesiastical ordinance or pontifical constitution may be
published without the government's placet; all Catholic
congregations were incorporated in Protestant parishes. The last
intolerable law was abolished in 1867 for three Catholic
parishes, henceforth recognized as such by the State, viz.,
Brunswick, Wolfenbuttel, and Helmstedt, all the others remaining
parts of Protestant parishes. Catholic priests (with the three
aforesaid exceptions) may not perform baptisms, marriages, or
hold funeral services without giving previous notice to the
Protestant pastor and obtaining his leave. And no priest, unless
duly recognized by the State, may perform any ecclesiastical
function without falling under the penalty of the law.
Non-recognized priests are even fined for conferring baptism in
the case of necessity, and for administering the last
sacraments. The same intolerance prevails with regard to schools
and the education of children of mixed marriages. The State
contributes nothing towards the support of Catholic worship. In
the year 1864 a law was passed abolishing Stolgebühren, i.e.,
all perquisites and fees received by the priest for certain
ecclesiastical functions, such as marriages and funerals, which
had previously to be handed over to the Protestant pastor. The
general statement, therefore, in the "Kirchenlexicon", that the
law of 1867 has rendered the condition of the Catholics in the
Duchy of Brunswick "wholly satisfactory", needs recension; it
must be restricted to the three above-named parishes; in the
rest of the duchy the condition of Catholics is far from
satisfactory. It is for this reason that the Centre Party in the
Reichstag has brought in the Toleration Bill, which, if carried,
would sweep away all Catholic disabilities throughout the
empire, in Brunswick as well as in Mecklenburg, and in the
Kingdom of Saxony.
Daniel, Handbuch der Geographie (5th ed., Leipzig), IV, 568-82;
Bruck, Gesichte der kath. Kirch in Deutschland im 19. Jahrh.
(Mainz and Kirchheim), III; Woker in Kirchenlex., s.v.;
Janssen-Pastor, Gesch. des deutsch. Volkes (18th ed., Freiburg),
III, Bk. II, xvii; IV, Bk. II, viii, Bk. III, xi; Staatslexikon
(2nd ed.), I, s.v. Konversations-Lex. (3rd ed., Freiburg), s.v.
B. GULDNER
Anton Brus
Anton Brus
Archbishop of Prague, b. at. Muglitz in Moravia, 13 February,
1518; d. 28 August, 1580. After receiving his education at
Prague he joined the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star, an
ecclesiastical order established in Bohemia in the thirteenth
century. After his ordination to the priesthood Emperor
Ferdinand appointed him chaplain of the Austrian army, in which
capacity he served during the Turkish war (1542-45). He was
elected Grand Master General of his order in 1552, when he was
only 34 years of age. In 1558 he became Bishop of Vienna; in
1561 the emperor made him Archbishop of Prague, a see which had
remained vacant since 1421 when Archbishop Conrad abandoned his
flock and entered the Hussite camp. During the intervening years
the archdiocese was governed by administrators elected by the
cathedral chapter. Before Archbishop Brus took possession of his
see, Emperor Ferdinand I, who was also King of Bohemia, sent him
as Bohemian legate to the Council of Trent (1562). Besides other
ecclesiastical reforms, he urged the archbishop to advocate the
expediency of permitting the Utraquists, or Calixtines, of
Bohemia and adjoining countries to receive the Holy Eucharist
under both species; he hoped that after this concession many of
the Utraquists would return to the Catholic Church. The
archbishop was ably assisted in his endeavours by the imperial
delegate from Hungary, Bishop George Draskovich of Funfkirchen
(Pécs), and by Baumgärtner, the delegate of Duke Albrecht V of
Bavaria. Brus could not be present at the twenty-first and the
twenty-second sessions of the Council, during which this
petition of the emperor was discussed. The majority of the
fathers of Trent considered it beyond their power to grant the
privilege of lay communion under both kinds and referred the
matter to Pope Pius IV, who, in a Brief dated 16 April, 1564,
granted the petition, with certain restrictions, to the subjects
of the emperor and of Duke Albrecht of Bavaria. The Archbishop
of Prague was to empower certain priests to administer the Holy
Eucharist in both kinds to such of the laity as desired it. The
faithful who wished to take advantage of this privilege were
obliged to profess their belief in the Real Presence of the
whole Christ in each species, while the priest at the
administration of each species pronounced the formula: "Corpus
et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiant animam tuam in
vitam aeternam. Amen." instead of the customary formula: "Corpus
Domini nostri," etc.
The emperor and the archbishop expected great results from this
papal concession. Thinking that the Utraquist consistory at
Prague would at once accept all Catholic doctrine, the emperor
put it under the jurisdiction of the archbishop. Both, however,
were soon undeceived. The Utraquist consistory was ready to
present its sacerdotal candidates to the archbishop for
ordination, but there his authority was to end. They refused to
permit their candidates for the priesthood to undergo
examination on Catholic theology or to give proof of their
orthodoxy, and complained to the emperor that the archbishop was
infringing upon their rights.
Had Ferdinand not died at this critical moment, the papal
concession would perhaps have produced some salutary effects,
but under the weak rule of his son Maximilian, who became
emperor in 1564, the gulf that separated the Catholics from the
Utraquists was continually widening. In order to publish and put
into execution the decrees of the Council of Trent, the
archbishop intended to convene a provincial synod at Prague; but
Maximilian, fearing to offend the Bohemian nobility of whom the
majority were Protestants, withheld his consent. Hampered on all
sides, the archbishop and the small body of Catholic nobles,
despite their almost superhuman efforts, could only postpone the
impending crisis. The Utraquists no longer heeded the
archbishop's commands, continued to administer the Holy
Eucharist to infants, disregarded many decrees of the Council of
Trent, neglected sacramental confession--in a word, were
steering straight towards Protestantism. After 1572, the
archbishop refused to ordain Utraquist candidates, despite the
expostulations of Emperor Maximilian. The death of Maximilian
(12 October, 1576) brought no relief to the archbishop and his
ever-decreasing flock of Catholics. His successor, Emperor
Rudolph II, though a good Catholic at heart, was as weak as his
predecessor. After the death of Brus the Catholics of Bohemia
continued on their downward course until the victory of
Ferdinand II over the Winterkönig Frederick V at the White
Mountain near Prague (8 November, 1620).
FRIND, Geschichte der Bischofe und Erzebischofe von Prag
(Prague, 1873), 182-189; BORWY in Kirchenlex., s.v.; biography
in Oesterreichische Vierteljahrschrift fur kath. Theologie
(Vienna, 1874).
MICHAEL OTT
Brusa
Brusa
A titular see of Bithynia in Asia Minor. According to Strabo,
XII, iv, the city was founded by King Prusias, who carried on
war with Croesus; according to Stephenus Byzantius, by another
Prusias, contemporary of Cyrus, so that it would have been
founded in the sixth century B.C. It is more probable that it
was founded by, and was named after, Prusias, King of Bithynia
and Hannibal's friend, 237-192 B.C. Situated in a beautiful,
well-watered fertile plain at the foot of Mount Olympus, it
became one of the chief cities of Roman Bithynia and received at
an early date the Christian teaching. At least three of its
bishops, Sts. Alexander, Patritius, and Timothy, suffered
martyrdom during the persecutions (Lequien, I, 615-620, numbers
only twenty-two bishops to 1721, but this list might be
increased easily). The see was first subject to Nicomedia,
metropolis of Bithynia Prima; later, as early at least as the
thirteenth century, it became an exempt archbishopric. In the
veighbouring country and at the foot of Mount Olympus stood many
monasteries; from the eighth to the fourteenth centuries it
shared with Mount Athos the honour of being a principal centre
of Greek monachism. In 1327 it was taken by Sultan Orkhan after
a siege of ten years and remained the capitol of the Ottoman
Empire till 1453. Brusa is to-day the chief town of the Vilayet
of Khodavendighiar. It is celebrated for its numerous and
beautiful mosques and tombs of the Sultans. Its mineral and
thermal waters are still renowned. The silk worm is cultivated
throughout the neighbouring territory; there are in the town
more than fifty silk-mills. Brusa has about 80,000 inhabitants,
of whom 6,000 are Greeks, 9,000 are Gregorian Armenians, 2,500
Jews, 800 Catholic Armenians, 200 Latins, and a few Protestants.
The Assumptionists conduct the Latin parish and a college. The
Sisters of Charity have a hospital, an orphan's institute, and a
school. Brusa is still a metropolis for the Greeks. It is also a
bishopric for Gregorian and Catholic Armenians; the latter
number about 4,000.
S. VAILHÉ
Brussels
Brussels
(From Bruk Sel, marsh-castle; Flem. Brussel, Ger. Brussel, Fr.
Bruxelles).
Capital of the Kingdom of Belgium. Its population at the end of
1905 (including the eight distinct communes that make up its
faubourgs or suburbs) was 612,041. The city grew up on the banks
of the little River Senne, one of the affluents of the Scheldt,
whose course through the old town is now arched over and covered
by the inner boulevards. The medieval city gained steadily in
importance, owing to its position on the main inland commercial
highway between the chief commercial centres of the Low
Countries and Cologne. It is now connected with the Sambre by
the Charleroi Canal, and with the Scheldt by the Willebroek
Canal which has been considerably enlarged since 1901 and is
destined to justify the title of "seaport" that Brussels has
borne since 1895.
HISTORY
The earliest settlement of Brussels is attributed by tradition
to S. Géry (Gaugericus), Bishop of Cambrai at the end of the
sixth century; he is said to have built a village on an island
in the Senne (Place Saint-Géry), also a small chapel ("Analecta
Bollandiana" 1888, VII, 387-398; L. Van der Essen, "Les 'Vitae'
des saints mérovingiens", Louvain, 1907; R. Flahault, "Notes et
documents relatifs au culte de S. Géry", Dunkerque, 1890). From
the eighth century it was one of the villas or temporary
residences of the Frankish kings, but is first mentioned in
history towards the end of the ninth century as Brosella
(dwelling on the marsh). It was later a part of the dower of
Gerberga, sister of Emperor Otto the Great (936-973) on her
marriage to Giselbert of Lorraine. Duke Charles of Lorraine, the
last but one of the direct descendants of Charlemagne, is said
to have been born at Brussels. He certainly made it his chief
place of abode, and brought thither from the Abbey of Mortzelle,
which had fallen into the hands of a robber chief, the bones of
his kinswoman, St. Gudule (979), who has ever since been
regarded as the patron saint of the town.
Upon the death of Charles' only son Otto (1004), without direct
heirs, the castles of Brussels, Vilvord, Louvain, and all the
adjoining estates, the nucleus of the territory which later on
formed the Duchy of Brabant, fell to his brother-in-law Lambert
Balderic, who sometimes in his charters styles himself Count of
Brussels and sometimes Count of Louvain, the man to whom the
Dukes of Brabant traced their descent. There remain of the
Brussels of this period the nave and aisles of the old parish
church of St. Nicholas, the chapel of the Holy Cross in the
church of Notre-Dame de La Chapelle, some fragments of the
fortifications with which Lambert Balderic surrounded the city
in 1040 and, most important of all, the subterranean church of
St. Guy at Anderlecht which remains to-day as the builder
planned it.
From the twelfth century the Dukes of Lower Lorraine and
Brabant, and later the Counts of Louvain, made Brussels their
residence and though it suffered, like most medieval cities,
from pestilence, fire, and pillage, it grew to be a populous
centre of life and commerce and followed all the vicissitudes of
medieval Brabant, with which it fell to the Dukes of Burgundy,
and on the death of Charles the Bold (1477), to his heirs, the
Austrian Hapsburgs. In the fifteenth century the Dukes of
Burgundy, heirs of both Brabant and Flanders, held court at
Brussels, and being French in speech and habits and surrounded
by French knights, courtiers, and civil servants, gradually
introduced at Brussels and elsewhere the French language until
it became the speech of the local nobility and the upper
classes, much to the detriment of the native Flemish. The
latter, however, held its own among the common people and the
burghers, and remains yet the speech of the majority of the
citizens. Charles V made Brussels the capital of the Low
Countries, but under Philip II, it was always a centre of
patriotic opposition to Spanish rule. In 1577 was signed the
peace known as the "Brussels Union" between the Spanish
authority and the rebellious Belgians; in 1585 the city was
beseiged and captured by the Spanish general Alessandro Farnese.
In 1695 it was almost entirely consumed by fire on occasion of
the siege by Marechal Villeroi. In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries it was under Austrian rule, with brief
exceptions. From 1794 to 1814 it was incorporated with France by
Napoleon, as head of the department of the Dyle. In the latter
year it became with The Hague a capital of the new Kingdom of
the Netherlands. In 1830 it was the seat of the Belgian
Revolution against Dutch misrule, and in the same year was made
the capital of the new Kingdom of Belgium. (See BELGIUM.)
GOVERNMENT
The municipal organization of Brussels was at first of a very
simple character. It consisted of an unpaid magistracy, a
College of Aldermen appointed by the sovereign for life from
among the chief freeholders of the city, of which they were held
to be representatives. It was presided over by a paid officer
who bore the title of Amman, was the direct delegate of the
sovereigh and in all things the representative of his authority.
Alongside the College of Aldermen was the Merchants' Guild.
Probably this corporation had legal existence before the
institution of the magistracy; it is certain that by the end of
the twelfth century it was firmly established. It exercised from
the first much influence on public affairs, and contributed in
great measure to the full expansion of municipal self-rule. With
the increase of the population, the old machinery no longer
sufficed for the maintenance of public peace and the regulation
of trade, and the burghers, united as they were in the powerful
organization of their guild, were strong enough to take the
matter into their own hands. Hence was formed the Council of
Jurors, a subsidiary body annually elected by the people for
policing the city and managing municipal affairs. The members
also participated with the College of Aldermen in the
administration of justice. Though there is no record of the
Council of Jurors before 1229, it is almost certain that it
dates from a much earlier period. Its existence, however, as a
body distinct from the higher magistracy, was not of long
duration. It disappeared at a very early period. From the first
the relations between the two corporations had been strained, as
they were the embodiment of hostile ideals, oligarchy, and
popular rule.
For a long period after the municipal organization of Brussels
had been definitely determined, all administration and
legislative power was in the hands of a narrow oligarchy of
capitalists, headed by the patrician families which from time
immemorial had furnished the members of the magistracy. The
source of their title to distinction was the ownership of land.
Together they formed a class apart, distinct alike from the
feudal nobility and from the general body of townsmen. They were
divided into seven groups, or Lignages, but it is certain that
many patricians were not the direct lineal descendants of the
houses whose names and arms they bore. Admission to the
aristocracy and to different lignages was to be obtained in
various ways. Indeed, the lignages of Brussels were to a certain
extent voluntary associations of aristocratic families banded
together for the sake of mutual protection, and with a view to
securing the election of their own nominees to the magistracy.
What the trade companies were to the plebeians, the lignages
were to the patricians.
The patricians were not all rich men, but the wealth of the
patrician body was being constantly augmented by the new members
who gained admission into its ranks, and with the increasing
prosperity of the town land was becoming daily more valuable for
building purposes. Many were thus able to live in luxury on the
rents produced by their property; others increased their
revenues by farming the state taxes; others were engaged in
banking operations; others again in commerce, in which case they
became members of the Merchants' Guild, the members of which
were constantly being enrolled in the lignages. Thus the Guild
was growing daily more aristocratic, until at last nearly all
its members were patricians by birth or by adoption. Embracing
as it did at first traders of every kind, it now became an
exceedingly close corporation and admitted to its membership
only the sellers of cloth and the sellers of wool, the cream of
the commercial world. Such were the men who owned the soil of
Brussels, who had endowed the city, often at their own cost,
with magnificent public buildings, who had won for themselves
free institutions, and who for the best part of 200 years
tyrannized over everyone else. They wrested from religious
houses their right of appointment to city livings; they withdrew
the management of schools from the clergy and placed them under
municipal control. By a special privilege of the Holy See no new
monastery could be founded in Brussels without the authorization
of the municipality. The tyranny aroused discontent.
The people first attempted to obtain a share in the government
during the troublous times which followed the death of Duke
Henry III (1260), and it seems to have been for the moment
successful, for the Council of Jurors was re-established, only
however to be suppressed again a few years later, and that was
doubtless the cause of the rising which took place in 1302. It
was not a very serious affair, and the ruling class with the aid
of the sovereign had little difficulty in suppressing it. The
riot which occurred on the eve of Candlemas, 1306, during the
absence of Duke John II, though it rose out of a small matter,
became a revolution. The party which triumphed showed singular
moderation; it was decided that the magistracy should consist as
heretofore of seven members, but that henceforth the people
should name them; that two financial assessors should be added
to the city council, and that the Council of Jurors should be
re-established; the new aldermen were all members of the old
ruling class chosen from among the little band of patricians
whose sympathies were sure to be with the popular cause. The new
constitution did not, however, last six months. Duke John II on
his return to Brussels refused to ratify it, and in spite of the
energetic resistance of the craftsmen, the old order of things
was re-established. The duke, however, gave discretionary powers
to the College of Aldermen to admit individual craftsmen to the
freedom of the city, no doubt to purchase the good will of
leading plebeians. Fifty years later Duke Wenceslaus, to reward
the plebeians for driving the Flemings out of Brussels, and to
mark his displeasure at the conduct of the patricians who had
welcomed them with open arms, granted to the trade companies by
charter an equal share with the lignages in the government of
the city. But the ink of the new charter was hardly dry when he
revoked it. It is not known why, but as Duke Wenceslaus
throughout his reign was always in financial straits and
considering his shifty conduct in his dealings with the opposing
factions at Louvain, it is not unlikely that he had been
purchased by the patricians. The riot which followed was
suppressed without much difficulty.
Though the College of Aldermen was annually renewed for more
than 100 years, there had been no election, the outgoing
aldermen having obtained a prescriptive right to name their
successors; the magistracy was notoriously corrup and the city
was honeycombed with debt, the outcome of so many years of
extravagance and thieving. In addition to this, the plebeian
triumph at Louvain had inflamed the people with an unquenchable
thirst for liberty, and they were only awaiting a favourable
moment to try their luck again. It was not, however, till 1368,
when Brussels was on the verge of revolution, that the
patricians made up their minds to set their house in order. They
were not yet prepared to give the people any voice in the
magistracy, but they were determined that when their work was
done, no man should be able to say that Brussels was ill
governed. By the advice of a committee composed of four
patricians and four plebeians stringent measures were taken to
ensure the even administration of justice; a permanent board was
appointed for the administration of finance, on which several
seats were allotted to the representatives of the trade
companies. This measure proved so successful that the following
year revenue covered expenditure and the interest on the debt;
the year after that payments were made on the principal, and by
1386, the whole debt was wiped out. In 1368 the Guild was
thoroughly reorganized on popular lines, and about the same time
it became customary to bestow a certain number of government
appointments on burghers of the middle class; lastly, in 1375,
the old system of electing the magistracy was revived. The
franchise was restricted to patricians of twenty-seven years and
upwards, and if any man failed to take part in the election, he
thereby lost all civil rights and privileges. The method of
election was exceedingly long and complicated. Thanks to this
important measure and to the other reforms which had preceded
it, Brussels was now honestly and capably governed and for
something like fifty years patricians and plebeians lived, if
not on terms of affection, at all events without quarrelling.
No doubt the greater material prosperity which the city at this
time enjoyed, was conducive in no small measure to the
maintenance of peace. Brussels was not dependent on cloth to
anything like the same extent as most of the other great towns
of the Netherlands, and the loss which she had sustained on this
head from English competition was probably made good by the
profit arising from trade which formerly went to Louvain, but
which was now, owing to the disturbed state of that city,
directed to the markets of Brussels. For the same reason
Brussels had now become the seat of the court, and she devoted
her attention to the manufacture of articles of luxury. Thanks
to these new industries the diminution, if any, of her cloth
trade was a matter of little concern to the people.
Headed by Count Philip of St. Pol, brother of the duke, the best
members of the three estates of Brabant had joined hands against
Duke John IV, who had been led astray by evil counsellors. When
all seemed lost, when Brussels was filled with foreign
mercenaries, the craftsmen had saved the situation, and received
as guerdon an equal share with the patricians in the government
and administration of their city. The articles of the new
charter were agreed upon in a great assembly of barons and of
deputies of the towns of Brussels, Antwerp, and Louvain, 6
February, 1421. The charter itself was signed and sealed by
Count Philip who had been appointed regent and its provisions
were immediately put into execution. The constitution of 1421
continued to be the legal constitution of the city of Brussels
until the close of the eighteenth century. The great struggle
between the patricians and the craftsmen was never again to be
renewed. The former disassociated themselves more and more from
trade and from municipal affairs, and were gradually absorbed in
the ranks of the old feudal aristocracy. The dissensions in the
centuries which followed were not the outcome of class hatred,
but of difference of opinion in religious matters, and of the
impolitic measures taken to restore religious unity by alien
rulers, who had no sympathy with the customs and traditions of
the Netherlands.
CHIEF BUILDINGS
There is probably no city in Europe which contains grander
medieval municipal buildings than those of Brussels, and the
greatest of them were built after the craftsmen obtained
emancipation. The foundation stone of the town hall was laid at
the beginning of the fifteenth century, but very little progress
was made till after 1421, and it was not completed till 1486;
the beautiful Hall of the Bakers opposite, now called La Maison
du Roi, dated from the following century; the grand old church
of Notre-Dame du Sablon, where most of the trade companies had
their chapels, was built in the course of the fourteenth
century, the greater portion of it probably after 1421. The
church of St. Gudule, dedicated to St. Michael, the grandest
church in Brussels, is rather a monument of the Dukes of
Brabant, than of the burghers. The foundation stone was probably
laid toward the close of the twelfth century, but it was not
completed till 1653. Its stained glass (sixteenth to nineteenth
century) is famous, especially that in the Chapel of the Blessed
Sacrament, donated (1540-47) by several Catholic kings and
queens in honour of the Miraculous Hosts preserved in St. Gudule
since 1370 when (on Good Friday) several Jews stole from the
tabernacle of the church of St. Catherine a number of
consecrated Hosts and sacrilegiously transfixed them in their
synagogue. The Hosts, it is said, bled miraculously; eventually
some of them were deposited in the church of St. Gudule, while
others were kept at Notre-Dame de La Chapelle, whence they
disappeared in 1579. But the guilty parties were discovered,
some were burned alive, and others were banished from Brabant
forever. An annual procession on the Sunday after 15 July,
perpetuates the memory of this event, and on this occasion the
identical Hosts are exposed in St. Gudule for the veneration of
the faithful (Corblet, "Hist. de l'Eucharistie", Paris, 1885,
II, 485-486; Balleydie, "Hist. de Ste-Gudule et du St-Sacrement
de Miracle", Brussels, 1859; Matagne, "Précis historiques",
Paris, 1870). Other noteworthy churches are: the Chapelle de
l'Expiation built in 1436 on the site of the above-mentioned
synagogue, in expiation of the sacrilege; Notre-Dame de La
Chapelle (1216-1485), a Gothic and Romanesque building, after
St. Gudule the finest of the medieval churches of Brussels;
Notre-Dame-des-Victoires or du Sablon, Flemish Gothic, founded
in 1304 by the Guild of Crossbowmen; the barocco church of the
Beguines (1657-76). The other churches of the city proper are:
St. Catherine, Sts. Jean et Etienne, Notre-Dame du Finistère,
St. Jacques sur Caudenberg, St. Nicholas, Riches-Claires,
Notre-Dame de Bon Secours, St. Josse-ten-Noode (Bruyn, Trésor
artistique des églises de Bruxelles, Louvain, 1882). The famous
guild houses in the market place, of which there are no less
than seventeen, were not erected until after the bombardment of
1695, when the old guild houses were all destroyed, which
proves, that at the close of the seventeenth century the masons
of Brussels were still cunning workers.
Brussels is noted for its magnificent system of boulevards. The
Place Royale is one of the noblest squares in modern Europe,
while the Grand Place in the heart of the old town is equally
remarkable as a medieval square. Around it are gathered the
Hotel de Ville, said to be the noblest piece of civil
architecture in Europe, the Maison du Roi, or former
government-house, and the seventeen famous guild houses or halls
of the industrial corporations (butchers, brewers, tailors,
carpenters, painters, etc.). These guild houses were erected
after the bombardment of 1695, when the old buildings were
destroyed. The modern Palais de Justice is the largest
architectural work of the nineteenth century; it rises on a
massive basis that measures 590 by 560 feet, and recalls by its
imposing bulk some vast Egyptian or Assyrian structure.
RELIGIOUS LIFE
There are three episcopal educational institutes, among them the
Institut Saint-Louis (about 100 teachers), with departments of
philosophy, letters, natural sciences, and a commercial school.
The city is divided into four deaneries, St. Gudule and three in
the faubourgs. There are 37 parishes in the city and faubourgs,
and in the city proper 72 prieses, 11 parishes, and 16 churches.
The religious orders are numerous, among them Dominicans,
Capuchins, Minor Conventuals, Jesuits, Redemptorists,
Carmelites, Servites, Barnabites, Alexians, etc. There are also
several communities of teaching brothers, principally Christian
Brothers. The religious houses of women in 1906 numbered about
80, divided among many orders and congregations, and devoted to
various educational and charitable works. The Hospital
Saint-Jean (1900) has 600 beds, that of Saint-Pierre 635. There
are 11 hospices and refuges for the aged, poor, and insane, and
27 other institutions for the care of the sick and needy.
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS
The University of Brussels, known as the Université libre (Free
University), was founded in 1834 by the Belgian Liberals as a
rival of the Catholic University of Louvain. It occupies the
former palaces of Cardinal Granvelle. In 1904 it numbered 1054
students. It has faculties of philosophy, the exact sciences,
jurisprudence, and medicine. The last faculty, located in the
picturesque Parc Léopold, possesses there a Physiological
Institute founded in 1895, an Institute of Hygiene,
Bacteriology, and Therapeutics, an Institute of Anatomy founded
1896-97, and a Commercial Institute (1904). Close by is the
valuable Musée d'Histoire Naturelle; connected with it is the
Ecole Polytechnique (1873) or school of applied sciences, with
six departments: mining, metallurgy, practical chemistry, civil
and mechanical engineering, and architecture. Similarly related
to the university are the School of Political and Social
Sciences and the School of Commerce founded by Ernest Solvay;
also the Instituts Solvay (Physiology, 1894; Sociology, 1901).
Since 1901 several universities for the people have been founded
in the faubourgs. There are in addition the important museums of
Brussels, military, ethnographic, commercial, pedagogic, natural
history, decorative arts, communal, Wiertz (at Ixelles), etc.
The Palais des Beaux Arts houses a unique and valuable
collection of Old Flemish Masters. The Bibliothèque Royale
contains a collection of some 500,000 volumes, and has also
inherited the famous Bibliothèque de Bourgogne, (27,000
manuscripts) founded by Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy
(1419-67) and one of the largest and most important collections
of its kind in Europe (De la Serna, Mém. hist. sur la
bibliothèque dite de Bourgogne, Brussels, 1809; Namur, His. des
bibliothèques publiques de Bruxelles, ibid., 1840).
Among the learned bodies of Brussels are the Académie Royale des
Sciences (1772), Académie de Medecine (1772), Académie des Beaux
Arts, with a school, the Société Scientifique (1876), an
important and unique International Institute of Bibliography
(1895). In 1905 the Conservatory of Music (1899) numbered 1229
pupils. The Jesuit College of Saint-Michel at Brussels is the
actual seat of the famous publication known as the "Acta
Sanctorum" (see Bollandists), and here are now kept the library
and the archives of this enterprise, originally begun and long
conducted at Antwerp.
Henne and Wauters, Histoire de Bruxelles (Brussels, 1845);
Wauters, Bruxelles et ses environs (ibid., 1852-56); Pirienne,
Histoire de la Belgique (Brussels, 1907); Gilliat-Smith, The
Story of Brussels.
ERNEST GILLIAT-SMITH
Simon William Gabriel Brute de Remur
Simon William Gabriel Bruté de Rémur
First Bishop of Vincennes, Indiana, U.S.A. (now Indianapolis),
b. at Rennes, France, 20 March 1779; d. at Vincennes, 26 June,
1839. His father was Simon-Guillaume-Gabriel Bruté de Remur, of
an ancient and respectable family, and Superintendent of the
Royal Domains in Brittany; and his mother, Jeanne-Renee Le
Saulnier de Vauhelle Vater, widow of Francis Vater, printer to
the King and Parliament at Rennes. Young Bruté had attended the
schools of his native city several years when the Revolution
interrupted his studies. He then learned and practised the
business of a compositor in the printing establishment of his
mother, where she placed him to avoid his enrolment in a
regiment of children who took part in the fusillades of the
Reign of Terror. This did not prevent his witnessing many
horrible and exciting scenes, and in his diary he mentions
having been present at the trial and precipitate execution of
priests and nobles in the cause of their religion. He frequented
the prisons and made friends of the guards, who admitted him to
the cells, where he received and delivered letters for the
clergy incarcerated there. More than once he bore in his bosom
to these suffering heroes the Blessed Sacrament.
In 1796 Bruté began the study of medicine, and in spite of the
avowed infidelity then prevalent in the schools, he remained
proof against sophistry and ridicule. He was graduated in 1803,
but did not practice medicine, as he immediately entered upon
the ecclesiastical studies, which he pursued for four years at
the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, Paris. Ordained priest on the
11th of June, 1808, he joined the Society of Saint-Sulpice and,
after teaching theology for two years, he sailed for the United
States with Bishop-elect Flaget (1810). At St. Mary's Seminary,
Baltimore, he taught philosophy for two years and then was sent
for a short time to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He was
transferred thence to Mt. St. Mary's Emmitsburg, where he taught
and at the same time performed the duties of pastor for the
Catholics of that vicinity with such devotion that he became
known as the "Angel of the Mount". During this period he became
the spiritual director of Mother Seton, foundress of the Sisters
of Charity in the United States, with whom he maintained a
lifelong friendship.
In 1815 he was appointed President of St. Mary's College,
Baltimore, but after three years (1818) he returned to
Emmitsburg. In 1826, Mt. St. Mary's College being no longer
dependent upon the Fathers of Saint-Sulpice, its founders,
Father Bruté ceased to belong to that society, but continued his
duties at the "Mountain" until 1834, when he was appointed to
the newly created See of Vincennes. He was consecrated in St.
Louis, October the 28th, 1834, by the Right Rev. Benedict J.
Flaget, Bishops Rosati and Purcell assisting. After travelling
over his vast diocese, comprising the whole State of Indiana and
eastern Illinois, Bishop Bruté visited France, where he secured
priests and funds for the erection of churches and schools in
his needy diocese.
Bishop Bruté left no published work except some ephemeral
contributions, which, over the pseudonym "Vincennes", appeared
in various journals, notably the Cincinnati "Catholic
Telegraph". It is to be regretted that he did not write an
autobiography, for which his Memoranda, notes, and Diary seem a
preparation. They teem with interest, and show him to have been
the friend of famous men in France. Conspicuous among the number
was de Lamennais, whom he tried to reconcile with the Church
both by his letters from this country, as well as by conferring
with him personally during one of his visits to France, but
without success.
Bayley, Momoirs of Bishop Bruté (New York, 1865); White, Life of
Mother Seton (Baltimore, 1879), VIII, 314; O'Gorman, American
Church History (New York, 1895), IX, xxiv, 394; Shea, History of
the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1890), III,
xv, 640; Alerding, History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese
of Vincennes (Indianapolis, 1888), 124; Bruté de Remur, Vie de
Mgr. Bruté de Remur, premier eveque de Vincennes (Rennes, 1887).
MICHAEL F. DINNEEN
Jacques Bruyes
Jacques Bruyas
Born at Lyons, France, 13 July, 1635; died at Sault St. Louis,
Canada, 15 June 1712. He entered the Society of Jesus, 11
November, 1651, joined the mission of Canada in 1666, and
labored there for 46 years among the Iroquois. From 1693 to 1698
Bruyas was Superior General of the Canadian missions, and in
1700, 1701, [sic] actively helped to secure for the French a
general peace with the Iroquois tribes. Besides writing a
catechism, prayers for the sick, and similar works, he is the
author of the oldest known Iroquois grammar. It was published
from the original manuscript by the Regents of the University of
the State of New York in their Sixteenth Annual Report of the
State Cabinet of Natural History (Albany, 1863). Father Bruyas
is considered to be the author of the "Iroquois Dictionary"
preserved in the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal of Paris.
Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 317; Jesuit Relations
(Cleveland, 1899), I, 323.
JOSEPH M. WOODS
John Delavau Bryant
John Delavau Bryant
Physician, poet, author, and editor, b. in Philadelphia, U.S.A.,
1811; d. 1877. He was the son of an Episcopalian minister, the
Rev. Wm. Bryant. His mother, was a daughter of John Delavau, a
shipbuilder of Philadelphia. His early education was under his
father and in the Episcopalian Academy. He received the degree
of A.B. in 1839, and A.M. in 1842 from the University of
Pennsylvania, and entered the General Theological Seminary of
the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York in 1839. After one
year he left the seminary to travel in Europe. On his return he
was received into the Catholic Church at St. John's Church,
Philadelphia, 12 February, 1842. He graduated in medicine at the
University of Pennsylvania in 1848. In 1855, during the yellow
fever epidemic in Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia, he
volunteered for duty and returned only after the epidemic had
subsided. In 1857, he married Miss. Mary Harriet Riston,
daughter of George Riston.
For two years in the early sixties he was editor of the
"Catholic Herald." His principal work, published in 1859 by
subscription, is an epic poem entitled "The Redemption",
apparently inspired by a visit to Jerusalem. It is founded on
the Bible and Catholic tradition, and, when it was first
published, attracted some attention and received many favourable
reviews. He also published, about 1852, a controversial novel
entitled "Pauline Seward" which had considerable vogue at the
time, especially among Catholics, and ran through ten editions.
In 1855 he published "The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, Mother of God", an exposition of the dogma recently
promulgated. All of his works are now out of print and can be
found practically only in reference libraries.
Records of the Amer. Catholic Hist. Soc., September, 1904.
JOSEPH WALSH
Bubastis
Bubastis
A titular see of Lower Egypt, on the right bank of the Pelusiac
branch of the Nile, near the modern Zagâzig, where its ruins are
shown under the name of Tell Bastah. Its true name was Bast
owing to the name of the local goddess Bastet; it became in Old
Egyptian Per-bastet (Coptic Boubasti, Hebrew Pi-beseth, Greek
Boubastis or more commonly Boubastos, i.e. House of Bastet). It
was a place of importance under the twenty-third dynasty about
950-750 B.C. When the eastern part of Lower Egypt was divided
into Augustamnica Prima in the north and Augustamnica Secunda in
the south, Bubastis was included in the latter, whose capital
was Leontopolis (Hierocles, Synecdemos, 728, 4), as the chief
town of the Bubastites nomos and like every Egyptian nomos was
the seat of a bishopric. Its bishop, Harpocration, was mentioned
at Nicaea by Meletius among his well-wishers (Athan. Apol.c.
Arianos, 71). About 340 the see was occupied by Hermon (Acta
SS., May, III, 61). Julianus was present at the Latrocinium of
Ephesus, 449. The see is mentioned in Georgius Cyprius (ed.
Gelzer, 705). In the Middle Ages its fate is blended with that
of Khandek, a Jacobite see near Cairo, to which it had been
united. Thus in 1078 Gabriel, ep. Basta, quoe et Khandek,
interfered in the election of the Patriarch Cyrillus (Renaudot,
Hist. patriarch Alexandr. 450, 458, 465), and in 1102 John took
a share in the consecration of the Patriarch Macarius II (ibid.,
482). Under the Patriarch Cyrillus III (1235-43), the see is
often mentioned, but without the name of its titular.
Lequien, Or. Christ., II, 559-562: Gams, Series episcop., 461.
L. PETIT
Gabriel Bucelin
Gabriel Bucelin
(Buzlin).
A Benedictine historical writer, born at Diessenhofen in
Thurgau, 29 December, 1599, died at Weingarten, 9 June, 1681. A
scion of the distinguished line of Bucellini counts, Gabriel, at
the age of thirteen, entered the Benedictine monastery at
Weingarten. After a course in Philosophy and theology at
Dillingen he was ordained priest 23 April, 1624, and in the same
year sent, as master of novices, to restore the primitive
fervour and raise the standard of studies in the monastery of
St. Trudpert in the Black Forest. Having filled the position of
master of novices at Weingarten and professor of humanities at
Feldkirch (1635), whence on the approach of the Swedish army he
was forced to flee to Admont (1646), he was appointed prior of
St. John's monastery, Feldkirch (1651), where he remained until
a few months before his death. Bucelin was a very prolific
writer, being the author of some fifty-three works, a large
number of which are still in manuscript in the royal library at
Stuttgart. His chief claim to the gratitude of posterity lies in
the fact that he was, if not the very first, at least among the
first authors to deal with the ecclesiastical history of
Germany. Of his published works the most important are:
"Germania sacra" (Augsburg, 1655), containing accounts of the
principal ecclesiastics, archbishops, abbots, etc., as well as a
list of the most important monasteries of Germany; "Germaniae
topo-chrono-stemmatographia sacra et profana" (1665-78),
treating, as its name implies, of the genealogy of the most
distinguished members of the clergy and the nobility;
"Constantia sacra et profana" (Frankfort, 1667), "Rhaetia
etrusca, romana, gallica, germanica" (Augsburg, 1661); "Nucleus
historicae universalis" (Ulm, 1650, 1654; carried from 1650 to
1735 by Schmier, "Apparatum ad theologiam
scholastico-polemico-practicam"), of great importance to
Scholars interested in ancient charts, bulls, diplomata, etc.
Bucelin was also the author of many works on the Benedictine
Order and its most illustrious members, among them "Aquila
imperii benedictina" (Venice, 1651); "Menologium benedictinum"
(Feldkirch, 1655).
F.M. RUDGE
Martin Bucer
Martin Bucer
(Also called BUTZER.)
One of the leaders in the South German Reformation movement, b.
11 November, 1491, at Schlettstadt, Alsace; d. 28 February,
1551, at Cambridge, England. He received his early education at
the Latin School of his native place, where at the age of
fifteen (1506) he also entered the Order of St. Dominic. Later
he was sent to the University of Heidelberg to prosecute his
studies, and matriculated, 31 January, 1517. He became an ardent
admirer of Erasmus, and soon an enthusiastic disciple of Luther.
He heard the Saxon monk at a public disputation, held at
Heidelberg in 1518, on the occasion of a meeting of the
Augustinian order, became personally acquainted with him, and
was immediately won over to his ideas. Having openly adopted the
new doctrine he withdrew from the Dominican order, in 1521,
became court chaplain of Frederick the Elector Palatine, and
laboured as secular priest at Landstuhl, in the Palatinate
(1522), and as a member of the household of Count Sickengen and
at Weissenburg, Lower Alsace (1522-23). During his incumbency at
Landstuhl he married Elizabeth Silbereisen, a former nun. When,
in 1523, his position became untenable at Weissenburg, he
proceeded to Strasburg. Here his activity was soon exercised
over a large field; he became the chief reformer of the city and
was connected with many important religio-political events of
the period. His doctrinal views on points controverted between
Luther and Zwingli at first harmonized completely with the ideas
of the Swiss Reformer. Subsequently he sought to mediate between
Lutherans and Zwinglians. The highly questionable methods to
which he resorted in the interest of peace drew upon him the
denunciation of both parties. In spite of the efforts of Bucer,
the Conference of Marburg (1529), at which the divergent views
of Luther and Zwingli, especially the doctrine regarding the
Eucharist, were discussed, failed to bring about a
reconciliation. At the Diet of Augsburg, in the following year,
he drew up with Capito the "Confessio Tetrapolitana", or
Confession of the Four Cities (Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen,
and Lindau). Later on, moved by political considerations, he
abandoned this for the Augsburg Confession. In 1536, he brought
about the more nominal than real "Concordia of Wittenberg" among
German Protestants. He gave his own, and obtained Luther's and
Melanchthon's approbation for the bigamy of the Landgrave Philip
of Hesse, attended in 1540 the religious conference between
Catholics and Protestants at Hagenau, Lower Alsace, and in 1541
the Diet of Ratisbon. The combined attempt of Bucer and
Melanchthon to introduce the Reformation into the Archdiocese of
Cologne ended in failure (1542). Political troubles and the
resistance of Bucer to the agreement arrived at by Catholics and
Protestants in 1548, and known as the "Augsburg Interim", made
his stay in Strasburg impossible. At the invitation of
Archbishop Cranmer, he proceeded to England in 1549. After a
short stay in London, during which he was received by King
Edward VI (1547-53), he was called to Cambridge as Regius
Professor of Divinity. His opinion was frequently asked by
Cranmer on church matters, notably on the controversy regarding
ecclesiastical vestments. But his sojourn was to be of short
duration, as he died in February, 1551. Under the reign of Queen
Mary (1553-58) his remains were exhumed and burned, and his tomb
was demolished (1556), but was reconstructed in 1560 by Queen
Elizabeth (1558-1603).
Bucer was, after Luther and Melanchthon, the most influential of
German Reformers. For a clear statement of doctrine he was ever
ready to substitute vague formulas in the interest of unity,
which even his able efforts could not establish among the
Reformers. He forms a connecting link between the German and the
English Reformation. Of the thirteen children he had by his
first marriage, only one, a weak-minded son, survived. Wibrandis
Rosenblatt, the successive wife of several Reformers (Cellarius,
Oecolampadius, Capito, and Bucer), whom he married after his
first wife died from the plague in 1541, bore him three
children, of whom a daughter survived. Only one of the ten folio
volumes in which his works were to appear was published (Basle,
1577). It is known as "Tomas Anglicanus" because its contents
were mostly written in England.
BAUM, Capito und Butzer (Elberfeld, 1860); MENTZ AND ERICHSON,
Zur 400 jahrigen Geburtsfeier Martin Butzers (Strasburg, 1891);
STERN, Martin Butzer (Strasburg, 1891); PAULUS, Die Strasburger
Reformatoren (Freiburg, 1895); SCHAFF, History of the Christian
Church (New York, 1904), VI, 571-573 and passim; WARD in Dict.
of Nat. Biog., VII, 172-177.
N.A. WEBER
Victor de Buck
Victor de Buck
Bollandist, born at Oudenarde, Flanders, 21 April, 1817; died 28
June, 1876. His family was one of the most distinguished in the
city of Oudenarde. After a brilliant course in the humanities,
at the municipal College of Soignies and the petit seminaire of
Roulers and completed in 1835 at the college of the Society of
Jesus at Alost, he entered this Society on 11 October of the
same year. After two years in the novitiate, then at Nivelles,
and a year at Tronchiennes reviewing and finishing his literary
studies, he went to Namur in September, 1838, to study
philosophy and the natural sciences, closing these courses with
a public defence of these bearing on these subjects.
The work of the Bollandists (q.v.) had just been revived and, in
spite of his youth, Victor De Buck was summoned to act as
assistant to the hagiographers. He remained at this work in
Brussels from September, 1840, to September, 1845. After
devoting four years to theological studies at Louvain where he
was ordained priest in 1848, and making his third year of
probation in the Society of Jesus he was permanently assigned to
the Bollandist work in 1850, and way engaged upon it until the
time of his death. He had already published in part second of
Vol. VII of the October "Acta Sanctorum", which appeared in
1845, sixteen commentaries or notices that are easily
distinguishable because they are without a signature, unlike
those written by the Bollandists. Moreover, during the course of
his theological studies which suffered thereby no interruption,
and before becoming a priest, he composed, in collaboration with
Antoine Tinnebroeck who, like himself was a scholastic, an able
refutatoin of a book published by the professor of canon law at
the University of Louvain, in which the rights of the regular
clergy were assailed and repudiated. This refutation which fills
an octavo volume of 640 pages, abounding in learned
dissertations, was ready for publication within four months. It
was to have been supplemented by a second volume that was almost
completed but could not be published because of the political
disturbances of the year which were but the prelude to the
revolutions of 1848, and the work was never resumed.
Father De Buck's literary activity was extraordinary. Besides
the numerous commentaries in Vols. IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII of
the October "Acta Sanctorum", which won the praise of those best
qualified to judge, he published in Latin, French, and Flemish,
a large number of little works of piety and dissertations on
devotion to the saints, church history, and Christian
archaeology, the partial emumeration of which fills two folio
columns of his eulogy, in the fore part of vol. II of the
November "Acta". Because of his extensive learning and
investigating turn of mind he was naturally bent upon probing
abstruse and perplexing questions; naturally, also, his work was
often the result of most urgent requests. Hence it was that, in
1862, he was led to publish in the form of a letter to his
brother Remi, then professor of church history at the
theological college of Louvain and soon afterwards his colleague
on the Bollandist work, a Latin dissertation "De solemnitate
praecipue paupertatis religiosae", which was followed in 1863
and 1864 by two treatises in French, one under the title:
"Solution aimable de la question des couvents" and the other "De
l'etat religieux", treating of the religious life in Belgium in
the nineteenth century.
At the solicitation chiefly of prelates and distinguised
Catholic savants, he undertook the study of a particularly
delicate question on order to satisfy the many requests made to
Rome by churches and religious communities for the relics of
saints, it had become customary to take from the Roman catacombs
the bodies of unknown personages believed to have been honoured
as martyrs in the early Church. The sign by which they were to
be recognized was a glass vial sealed up in the plaster outside
the loculus that contained the body, and bearing traces of a red
substance that had been enclosed and was supposed to have been
blood. Doubts had arisen as to the correctness of this
interpretation and, after careful study, Father De Buck felt
convinced that it was false and that what had been taken for
blood was probably the sediment of consecrated wine vhich, owing
to misguised piety held and had been placed in the tomb near the
bodies of the dead. The conclusion, together with its premises,
was set forth in a dissertation published in 1885 under the
title "De phialis rubricatis quibus martyrum romanorum sepulcra
dignosci dicuntur". Naturally it raised lively protestations,
particularly on the part of those who were responsible for
distributing the bodies of the saints, the more so, as after the
discussions on the vials of blood, the cardinal vicar in 1861
strictly forbade any further transportation of these relics. The
author of the dissertation, "De phialis rubricatis", had but a
few copies of his work struck off, these being intended for the
cardinals and prelates particularly Interested in the question
and as none were put on the market, it was rumoured that De
Buck's superiors had suppressed the publication of the book and
that all the copies printed, save five or six, had been
destroyed. This, of course. was untrue; not one copy had been
destroyed and his superiors had laid no blame upon the author.
Then, in 1863, a decree was obtained from the Congregation of
Rites, renewing an older decree, thereby it was declared that a
vial of blood placed outside of a sepulchral niche in the
catacombs was an unmistakable sign by which the tomb of a martyr
might be known, and it was proclaimed that Victor De Buck's
opinion was formally disapproved and condemned by Rome. This too
was false, as Father De Buck had never intimated that the
placing of the vial of blood did not indicate the resting-place
of a martyr, when it could be proved that the vial contained
genuine blood, such as was supposed by the decree of the
congregation. Finally, there appeared in Paris in 1897 a large
quarto volume written by the Roman prelate, Monsignor
Sconamiglio, "Reliquiarum custode". It was filled with caustic
criticisms of the author of "De phialis rubricatis" and
relegated him to the rank of notorious heretics who had combated
devotion to the saints and the veneration of their relics.
Father De Buck seemed all but insensible to the attacks and
contented himself with opposing to Monsignor Sconamiglio's book
a protest in which he rectified the more or less unconscious
error of his enemies by proving that neither the decree of 1863
nor any other decision emanating from ecclesiastical authority
had affected his thesis.
However, another attack made about the same time touched him
more deeply. The gravest and most direct accusations were made
against him and reported to the Sovereign Pontiff himself, he
was even credited with opinions which, if not formally
heretical, at least openly defied the ideas that are universally
accepted and held in veneration by Catholics devoted to the Holy
See. In a Latin letter addressed to Cardinal Patrizzi, and
intended to come to the notice of the Supreme Pontiff, Father De
Buck repudiated the calumnies in a manner that betrayed how
deeply he had been affected, his pretest being supported by the
testimony of four of his principal superiors, former
provincials, and rectors who eagerly vouched for the sincerely
of his declarations and the genuineness of his religious spirit.
With the full consent of his superiors he published this letter
in order to communicate with those of his friends who might have
been disturbed by an echo of these accusations.
What might have invested these accusations with some semblance
of truth and what certainly gave rise to them, were the amicable
relations established, principally through correspondence,
between Father De Buck and such men as Alexander Forbes, the
learned Anglican bishop the celebrated Edward Pusey in England,
Montalembert, and Bishop Dupanloup in France and a number of
others whose names were distasteful to many ardent Catholics.
These relations were brought about by the reputation for deep
learning, integrity, and scientific independence that De Buck's
works had rapidly earned tor him, by his readiness to oblige
those who addressed themselves to him in their perplexities, and
by his remarkable earnestness and skill in elucidating the most
difficult questions. Moreover, he was equipped with all the
information that incessant study and a only great rounds groping
outside of the true Faith or weakened by harassing doubts who
thus appealed to his knowledge. The different papal nuncios who
succeeded one another in Belgium during the course of his career
as Bollandist, bishops, political men, mernbers of learned
bodies and journalists ceased not to importune this gracious
scholar whose answers often formed important memoranda which,
although the result of several days and sometimes several nights
of uninterrupted labour, were read only those who called them
forth or else appeared anonymously in some Belgian or foreign
periodical.
Although Father De Buck had an unusually robust constitution and
enjoyed exceptionally good health, constant and excessive work
at length told upon him and he was greatly fatigued when Father
Beckx, Father General of the Society, summoned him to Rome to
act as official theologian at the Vatican Council. Father Victor
assumed these new duties with his accustomed ardour and, upon
his return, showed the first symptoms of the malady
arterio-sclerosis that finally carried him off. He struggled for
some years longer against a series of painful attacks each of
which left him decidedly weaker, until a final attack that
lasted almost interruptedly for nearly four years, caused his
death.
CH. DE SMEDT
Buckfast Abbey
Buckfast Abbey
The date of the foundation of the monastery of Our Lady of
Buckfast, two miles from Ashburton, England, in a beautiful
Devonshire valley watered by the Dart, is unknown; but it was
certainly long before the Norman Conquest. The eartiest
authentic document is a grant by King Canute (1015-1035), to the
monks of Buckfast of the manor of Sele, now called Zeal
Monachorum. The best authorities assign the foundation to the
middle of the tenth century. Early in the twelfth century it was
incorporated into the Benedictine Congregation of savigny,
founded in Normandy in 1112. In 1148, five years before the
death of St. Bernard, the thirty Savigny houses, including
Buckfast (of which Eustace was then abbot) were affiliated to
Clairvaux, thus becoming a part of the great Cistercian Order.
Buckfast now developed into one of the most important
monasteries in the great Diocese of Exeter. It flourished both
materially and spiritually originating the celebrated woollen
trade of the district encouraging other industries, and
preserving unimpaired its discipline and the fervour of its
observance. The latter, however, became relaxed (as in other
Cistercian houses) in the fourteenth century, one result being
the rapid diminution in the community. The reputation, however,
of the monks for learning was sustained until the dissolution,
and they seem to have been generally beloved in the district for
their piety, kindliness, and benevolence.
The last legitimately elected Abbot of Buckfast was John Rede,
who died about 1535, the year of the Visitation ordered by Henry
VIII, which resulted in the intrusion of Gabriel Donne into the
vacant chair. Donne surrendered the house to the King in 1538,
receiving for himself ample compensation. The buildings were
immediately sold, the lead stripped from the roof, and the
monastery and church left to decay. In 1882, about three
centuries and a half after the suppression of the Cistercian
Abbey, the ruined building came again into the possession of
Benedictine monks, belonging to the French province of the
Cassinese Congregation of the Primitive Observance. Mass was
again said and the Divine Office chanted at Buckfast on 29
October, 1882, and eight months later the Abbey was legally
conveyed to the monks.
The plan of the buildings at Buckfast followed the conventional
Cistercian arrangement, with the cloister south of the church,
and grouped round it the chapter-house, calefactory, refectory,
and other loca regularia. The church was 220 feet long, with
short transcripts, each with a small eastern chapel. The
Benedictines now in possession have built a temporary church,
and are proceeding with the work of rebuilding the former one,
and the rest of the monastic buildings, on the ancient
foundations. The tower which still remains was been carefully
restored, and the southern wing of the monastery has been
rebuilt in simple twelfth-century style, and was opened in
April, 1886. The third abbot since the return of the monks in
1882, Dom Anscher Vouier, formerly one of the professors at the
Benedictine University of St. Anselm in Rome, was solemnly
blessed by the Bishop of Plymouth in October, 1906.
D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR
Sir Patrick Alphonsus Buckley
Sir Patrick Alphonsus Buckley
A soldier, lawyer, stateman, judge, born near Castletownsend,
County Cork, Ireland, in 1841; died at Lower Hutt, New Zealand,
18 May, 1896. He was educated at the Mansion House School, Cork;
St. Colman's College, Paris; the Irish College, Paris; and the
Catholic University, Louvain. He was in Louvain when the
Piedmontese invaded the States of the Church in 1860, and at the
request of Count Carlo MacDonnell, Private Chamberlain to Pius
IX, conducted the recruits of the Irish Papal Brigade from
Ostend to Vienna, where they were placed in charge of
representatives of the Holy See. He served under General
Lamoriciere, received a prisoner at Ancona. After the war he
returned to Ireland. Thence he emigrated to Queensland, where he
completed his legal studies and was admitted to the Bar. After a
short residence in Queensland he settled in New Zealand, and
commenced the practice of his profession in Wellington. Soon
after his arrival in New Zealand, he became a member of the
Wellington Provincial Council, and was Provincial Solicitor in
the Executive when the Provincial Parliaments were abolished in
1875. He was called to the Legislative Council in 1878; was
Colonial Secretary and leader of the Upper House in the
Stout-Vogel Ministry (1884-87), and Attorney-GeneraL, Colonial
Secretary, and leader of an overwhelmingly Opposition Upper
House under the Ballance Administration from 1891 till 1895,
when he accepted the position of Judge of the Supreme Court. He
was created Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George in
1892.
HENRY W. CLEARY
Buddhism
Buddhism
The religious, monastic system, founded c. 500 B.C. on the basis
of pantheistic Brahminism. The speculations of the Vedanta
school of religious thought, in the eighth and following
centuries, B.C., gave rise to several rival schemes of
salvation. These movements started with the same morbid view
that conscious life is a burden and not worth the living, and
that true happiness is to be had only in a state like dreamless
sleep free from all desires, free from conscious action. They
took for granted the Upanishad doctrine of the endless chain of
births, but they differed from pantheistic Brahminism both in
their attitude towards the Vedas and in their plan for securing
freedom from rebirth and from conscious existence. In their
absolute rejection of Vedic rites, they stamped themselves as
heresies. Of these the one destined to win greatest renown was
Buddhism.
I. THE FOUNDER
Of Buddha, the founder of this great movement, legendary
tradition has much to say, but very little of historical worth
is known. His father seems to have been a petty raja, ruling
over a small community on the southern border of the district
now known as Nepal. Buddha's family name was Gotama (Sanskrit
Gautama), and it was probably by this name that he was known in
life. In all likelihood it was after his death that his
disciples bestowed on him a number of laudatory names, the most
common being Buddha, i.e. "the enlightened". Like the newborn
youths of his day, he must have spent some time in the study of
the sacred Vedas. After the immemorial custom of the East, he
married at an early age, and, if tradition may be trusted,
exercised a prince's privilege of maintaining a harem. His
principal wife bore him a son. His heart was not at rest. The
pleasures of the world soon palled upon him, and abandoning his
home he retired to the forest, where as a hermit he spent
several years in austere self-discipline, studying doubtless,
the way of salvaion as taught in the Upanishads. Even this did
not bring peace to his mind. He gave up the rigorous fasts and
mortifications, which nearly cost him his life, and devoted
himself in his own way to long and earnest meditation, the fruit
of which was his firm belief that he had discovered the only
true method of escaping from the misery of rebirth and of
attaining to Nirvana. He then set out to preach his gospel of
deliverance, beginning at Benares. His magnetic personality and
his earnest, impressive eloquence soon won over to his cause a
number of the warrior caste. Brahmins, too, felt the
persuasiveness of his words, and it was not long before he was
surrounded by a band of enthusiastic disciples, in whose company
he went from place to place, by making converts by his
preaching. These soon became very numerous and were formed into
a great brotherhood of monks. Such was the work to which Buddha
gave himself with unsparing zeal for over forty years. At
length, worn out by his long life of activity, he fell sick
after a meal of dried boar's flesh, and died in the eightieth
year of his age. The approximate date of his death is 480 B.C.
It is noteworthy that Buddha was a contemporary of two other
famous religious philosophers, Pythagoras and Confucius.
In the sacred books of later times Buddha is depicted as a
character without flaw, adorned with every grace of mind and
heart. There may be some hesitation in taking the highly
coloured portrait of Buddhist tradition as the exact
representation of the original, but Buddha may be credited with
the qualities of a great and good man. The records depict him
moving about from place to place, regardless of personal
comfort, calm and fearless, mild and compassionate, considerate
towards poor and rich alike, absorbed with the one idea of
freeing all men from the bonds of misery, and irresistible in
his manner of setting forth the way of deliverance. In his
mildness, his readiness to overlook insults, his zeal, chastity,
and simplicity of life, he reminds one not a little of St.
Francis of Assisi. In all pagan antiquity no character has been
depicted as so noble and attractive.
II. BUDDHIST TEXTS
The chief sources for early Buddhism are the sacred books
comprised in the first two divisions of the Ti-pitaka
(triple-basket), the threefold Bible of the Southern School of
Buddhists. In India, today, the Buddhists are found only in the
North, in Nepal, and in the extreme South, in the island of
Ceylon. They represent two different schools of thought, the
Northern worshipping Buddha as supreme personal deity though at
the same time adopting most of the degrading superstitions of
Hinduism, the Southern adhering in great measure to the original
teachings of Buddha. Each school has a canon of sacred books.
The Northern canon is in Sanskrit, the Southern in Pali, a
softer tongue, into which Sanskrit was transformed by the people
of the South. The Southern canon, Ti-pitaka, which reflects more
faithfully the teachings of Buddha and his early disciples,
embraces
+ the Vinaya-pitaka, a collection of books on the disciplinary
rules of the order,
+ the Sutta-pitaka, didactic tracts consisting in part of
alleged discourses of Buddha; and
+ the Abhidhamma-pitaka, comprising more detailed treatises on
doctrinal subjects.
Most of the Vinavas and some of the Suttas have been made
accessible to English readers in the "Sacred Books of the East".
The Ti-pitaka seems to date back to the second and third
centuries B.C., but a few additions were made even after it was
committed to writing in the early part of the first century of
the Christian Era. While there may be doctrinal and disciplinary
parts from the time of Buddha none of the twenty-nine books
comprised in the Ti-pitaka can be proved to be older than 300
B.C. These books stripped of their tiresome repetitions, would
be about equal in size to the Bible, though on the whole they
are vastly inferior to the Sacred Scripture in spirituality,
depth of thought, variety of subject, and richness of
expression.
There are also a few extra-canonical books, likewise in Pali on
which the Southern Buddhists set great value, the Dipavansa and
Mahavansa, which give an uncritical history of Buddhism down to
about A.D. 300, the "Commentaries of Buddhagosa", and the
Milinda Panha, ably translated by Rhys Davids under the title
"The Questions of King Milinda". These works belong to the
fourth and following centuries of our era. In the Tri-pitaka of
the Northern School are included the well-known
Saddharma-pundarika (Lotus of the True Law), and the legendary
biographies of Buddha, the Buddha Charita, and the Lalita
Vistara (Book of Exploits), which are generally assigned to the
last quarter of the first century A.D. Besides the Tri-pitaka,
the Northern Buddhists reckon as canonical several writings of
more recent times adapted from the abominable Hindu Tantras.
III. PRIMITIVE BUDDHISM
Buddhism was by no means entirely original. It had much in
common with the pantheistic Vedanta teaching, from which it
sprang belief in karma, whereby the character of the present
life is the net product of the good and evil acts of a previous
existence; belief in a constant series of rebirths for all who
set their heart on preserving their individual existence; the
pessimistic view that life at its best is misery and not worth
living. And so the great end for which Buddha toiled was the
very one which gave colour to the pantheistic scheme of
salvation propounded by the Brahmin ascetics, namely, the
liberation of men from misery by setting them free from
attachment to conscious existence. It was in their conception of
the final state of the saved, and of the method by which it was
to be attained that they differed. The pantheistic Brahmin said:
Recognize your identity with the great impersonal god, Brahma, you
thereby cease to be a creature of desires; you are no longer held
fast in the chain of rebirths; at death you lose your individuality,
your conscious existence, to become absorbed in the all-god Brahma.
In Buddha's system, the all-god Brahma was entirely ignored.
Buddha put abstruse speculation in the background, and, while
not ignoring the value of right knowledge, insisted on the
saving part of the will as the one thing needful. To obtain
deliverance from birth, all forms of desire must be absolutely
quenched, not only very wicked craving, but also the desire of
such pleasures and comforts as are deemed innocent and lawful,
the desire even to preserve one's conscious existence. It was
through this extinction of every desire that cessation of misery
was to be obtained. This state of absence of desire and pain was
known as Nirvana (Nibbana). This word was not coined by Buddha,
but in his teaching, it assumed a new shade of meaning. Nirvana
means primarily a "blowing out", and hence the extinction of the
fire of desire, ill-will, delusion, of all, in short, that binds
the individual to rebirth and misery. It was in the living
Buddhist saint a state of calm repose, of indifference to life
and death, to pleasure and pain, a state of imperturbable
tranquility, where the sense of freedom from the bonds of
rebirth caused the discomforts as well as the joys of life to
sink into insignance. But it was not till after death that
Nirvana was realized in its completeness. Some scholars have so
thought. And, indeed, if the psychological speculations found in
the sacred books are part of Buddha's personal teaching, it is
hard to see how he could have held anything else as the final
end of man. But logical consistency is not to be looked for in
an Indian mystic. If we may trust the sacred books, he expressly
refused on several occasions to pronounce either on the
existence or the non-existence of those who had entered into
Nirvana, on the ground that it was irrelevant, not conducive to
peace and enlightenment. His intimate disciples held the same
view. A monk who interpreted Nirvana to mean annihilation was
taken to task by an older monk, and convinced that he had no
right to hold such an opinion, since the subject was wrapped in
impenetrable mystery. The learned nun Khema gave a similar
answer to the King of Kosala, who asked if the deceased Buddha
was still in existence. Whether the Perfect One exists after
death, whether he does not exist after death, whether he exists
and at the same time does not exist after death, whether he
neither exists nor does not exist after death, has not been
revealed by Buddha. Since, then, the nature of Nirvana was too
mysterious to be grasped by the Hindu mind, too subtle to be
expressed in terms either of existence or of non-existence, it
would be idle to attempt a positive solution of the question. It
suffices to know that it meant a state of unconscious repose, an
eternal sleep which knew no awakening. In this respect it was
practically one with the ideal of the pantheistic Brahmin.
In the Buddhist conception of Nirvana no account was taken of
the all-god Brahma. And as prayers and offerings to the
traditional gods were held to be of no avail for the attainment
of this negative state of bliss, Buddha, with greater
consistency than was shown in pantheistic Brahminism, rejected
both the Vedas and the Vedic rites. It was this attitude which
stamped Buddhism as a heresy. For this reason, too, Buddha has
been set down by some as an atheist. Buddha, however, was not an
atheist in the sense that he denied the existence of the gods.
To him the gods were living realities. In his alleged sayings,
as in the Buddhist scriptures generally, the gods are often
mentioned, and always with respect. But like the pantheistic
Brahmin, Buddha did not acknowledge his dependence on them. They
were like men, subject to decay and rebirth. The god of today
might be reborn in the future in some inferior condition, while
a man of great virtue might succeed in raising himself in his
next birth to the rank of a god in heaven. The very gods, then,
no less than men, had need of that perfect wisdom that leads to
Nirvana, and hence it was idle to pray or sacrifice to them in
the hope of obtaining the boon which they themselves did not
possess. They were inferior to Buddha, since he had already
attained to Nirvana. In like manner, they who followed Buddha's
footsteps had no need of worshipping the gods by prayers and
offerings. Worship of the gods was tolerated, however, in the
Buddhist layman who still clung to the delusion of individual
existence, and preferred the household to the homeless state.
Moreover, Buddha's system conveniently provided for those who
accepted in theory the teaching that Nirvana alone was the true
end of man but who still lacked the courage to quench all
desires. The various heavens of Brahminic theology, with their
positive, even sensual, delights were retained as the reward of
virtuous souls not yet ripe for Nirvana. To aspire after such
rewards was permitted to the lukewarm monk; it was commended to
the layman. Hence the frequent reference, even in the earliest
Buddhist writings to heaven and its positive delights as an
encouragement to right conduct. Sufficient prominence is not
generally given to this more popular side of Buddha's teaching,
without which his followers would have been limited to an
insignificant and short-lived band of heroic souls. It was this
element, so prominent in the inscriptions of Asoka, that
tempered the severity of Buddha's doctrine of Nirvana and made
his system acceptable to the masses.
In order to secure that extinction of desire which alone could
lead to Nirvana, Buddha prescribed for his followers a life of
detachment from the comforts, pleasures, and occupations of the
common run of men. To secure this end, he adopted for himself
and his disciples the quiet, secluded, contemplative life of the
Brahmin ascetics. It was foreign to his plan that his followers
should engage in any form of industrial pursuits, lest they
might thereby be entangled in worldly cares and desires. Their
means of subsistence was alms; hence the name commonly applied
to Buddhist monks was bhikkus, beggars. Detachment from family
life was absolutely necessary. Married life was to be avoided as
a pit of hot coals, for it was incompatible with the quenching
of desire and the extinction of individual existence. In like
manner, worldly possessions and worldly power had to be
renounced--everything that might minister to pride, greed, or
self-indulgence. Yet in exacting of his followers a life of
severe simplicity, Buddha did not go to the extremes of
fanaticism that characterized so many of the Brahmin ascetics.
He chose the middle path of moderate asceticism which he
compared to a lute, which gives forth the proper tones only when
the strings are neither too tight nor too slack. Each member was
allowed but one set of garments, of yellowish colour and of
cheap quality. These, together with his sleeping mat, razor,
needle, water-strainer, and alms bowl, constituted the sum of
his earthly possessions. His single meal, which had to be taken
before noon, consisted chiefly of bread, rice, and curry, which
he gathered daily in his alms-bowl by begging. Water or
rice-milk was his customary drink, wine and other intoxicants
being rigorously forbidden, even as medicine. Meat, fish, and
delicacies were rarely eaten except in sickness or when the monk
dined by invitation with some patron. The use of perfumes,
flowers, ointments, and participation in worldly amusements fell
also into the class of things prohibited. In theory, the moral
code of Buddhism was little more than a copy of that of
Brahminism. Like the latter, it extended to thoughts and
desires, no less than to words and deeds. Unchastity in all its
forms, drunkenness, lying, stealing, envy, pride, harshness are
fittingly condemned. But what, perhaps, brings Buddhism most
strikingly in contact with Christianity is its spirit of
gentleness and forgiveness of injuries. To cultivate benevolence
towards men of all classes, to avoid anger and physical
violence, to be patient under insult, to return good for
evil--all this was inculated in Buddhism and helped to make it
one of the gentlest of religions. To such an extent was this
carried that the Buddhist monk, like the Brahmin ascetic, had to
avoid with the greatest care the destruction of any form of
animal life.
In course of time, Buddha extended his monastic system to
include women. Communities of nuns while living near the monks,
were entirely secluded from them. They had to conform to the
same rule of life, to subsist on alms, and spend their days in
retirement and contemplation. They were never as numerous as the
monks, and later became a very insignificant factor in Buddhism.
In thus opening up to his fellow men and women what he felt to
be the true path of salvation, Buddha made no discrimination in
social condition. Herein lay one of the most striking contrasts
between the old religion and the new. Brahminism was
inextricably intertwined with caste-distinctions. It was a
privilege of birth, from which the Sudras and members of still
lower classes were absolutely excluded. Buddha, on the contrary,
welcomed men of low as well as high birth and station. Virtue,
not blood, was declared to be the test of superiority. In the
brotherhood which he built around him, all caste-distinctions
were put aside. The despised Sudra stood on a footing of
equality with the high-born Brahmin. In this religious democracy
of Buddhism lay, doubtless, one of its strongest influences for
conversion among the masses. But in thus putting his followers
on a plane of equal consideration, Buddha had no intention of
acting the part of a social reformer. Not a few scholars have
attributed to him the purpose of breaking down
caste-distinctions in society and of introducing more democratic
conditions. Buddha had no more intention of abolishing caste
than he had of abolishing marriage. It was only within the
limits of his own order that he insisted on social equality just
as he did on celibacy. Wherever Buddhism has prevailed, the
caste-system has remained untouched.
Strictly speaking, Buddha's order was composed only of those who
renounced the world to live a life of contemplation as monks and
nuns. The very character of their life, however, made them
dependent on the charity of men and women who preferred to live
in the world and to enjoy the comforts of the household state.
Those who thus sympathized with the order and contributed to its
support, formed the lay element in Buddhism. Through this
friendly association with the order, they could look to a happy
reward after death, not Nirvana but the temporary de!ights of
heaven, with the additional prospect of being able at some
future birth to attain to Nirvana, if they so desired. The
majority, however, did not share the enthusiasm of the Buddhist
Arhat or saint for Nirvana, being quite content to hope for a
life of positive, though impermanent, bliss in heaven.
IV. LATER DEVELOPMENTS AND SPREAD OF BUDDHISM
The lack of all religious rites in Buddhism was not keenly felt
during the lifetime of its founder. Personal devotion to him
took the place of religious fervour. But he was not long dead
when this very devotion to him began to assume the form of
religious worship. His reputed relics, consisting of his bones,
teeth, alms-bowl, cremation-vessel, and ashes from his funeral
pyre, were enclosed in dome-shaped mounds called Dagobas, or
Topes, or Stupas, and were honoured with offerings of lights,
flowers, and incense. Pictures and statues of Buddha were
multiplied on every side, and similarly honoured, being carried
about on festal days in solemn procession. The places, too,
associated with his birth, enlightenment, first preaching, and
death were accounted especially sacred, and became the objects
of pilgrimage and the occasion of recurring festivals. But as
Buddha had entered into Nirvana and could not be sensible of
these religious honours, the need was felt of a living
personality to whom the people could pray. The later
speculations of Buddhist monks brought such a personality to
light in Metteyya (Maitreya), the loving one, now happily
reigning in heaven as a bodhisattva, a divine being destined in
the remote future to become a Buddha, again to set in motion the
wheel of the law. To this Metteyya the Buddhists turned as the
living object of worship of which they had so long felt the
need, and they paid him religious homage as the future saviour
of the world.
The emergence of the Northern School
Such was the character of the religious worship observed by
those who departed the least from Buddha's teachings. It is what
is found today in the so-called Southern Buddhism, held by the
inhabitants of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam. Towards the end of first
century A.D., however, a far more radical change took place in
the religious views of the great mass of Buddhists in Northern
India. Owing, doubtless, to the ever growing popularity of the
cults of Vishnu and Siva, Buddhism was so modified as to allow
the worship of an eternal, supreme deity, Adi-Buddha, of whom
the historic Buddha was declared to have been an incarnation, an
avatar. Around this supreme Buddha dwelling in highest heaven,
were grouped a countless number of bodhisattvas, destined in
future ages to become human Buddhas for the sake of erring man.
To raise oneself to the rank of bodhisattva by meritorious works
was the ideal now held out to pious souls. In place of Nirvana,
Sukhavati became the object of pious longing, the heaven of
sensuous pleasures, where Amitabha, an emanation of the eternal
Buddha, reigned. For the attainment of Sukhavati, the necessity
of virtuous conduct was not altogether forgotten, but an
extravagant importance was attached to the worship of relics and
statues, pilgrimages, and, above all, to the reciting of sacred
names and magic formulas. Many other gross forms of Hindu
superstition were also adopted. This innovation, completely
subversive of the teaching of Buddha, supplanted the older
system in the North. It was known as the Mahayana, or Great
Vehicle, in distinction to the other and earlier form of
Buddhism contemptuously styled the Hinayana or Little Vehicle,
which held its own in the South. It is only by the few millions
of Southern Buddhists that the teachings of Buddha have been
substantially preserved.
Buddha's order seems to have grown rapidly, and through the good
will of rulers, whose inferior origin debarred them from Brahmin
privileges, to have become in the next two centuries a
formidable rival of the older religion. The interesting
rock-edicts of Asoka--a royal convert to Buddhism who in the
second quarter of the third century B.C. held dominion over the
greater part of India--give evidence that Buddhism was in a most
flourishing condition, while a tolerant and kindly spirit was
displayed towards other forms of religion. Under his auspices
missionaries were sent to evangelize Ceylon in the South, and in
the North, Kashmer, Kandahar, and the so-called Yavana country,
identified by most scholars with the Greek settlements in the
Kabul valley and vicinity, and later known as Bactria. In all
these places Buddhism quickly took root and flourished, though
in the Northern countries the religion became later on corrupted
and transformed into the Mahayana form of worship.
Buddhism in China
In the first century of the Christian Era, the knowledge of
Buddha made its way to China. At the invitation of the Emperor
Ming-ti, Buddhist monks came in A.D. 67 with sacred books,
pictures, and relics. Conversions multiplied, and during the
next few centuries the religious communications between the two
countries were very close. Not only did Buddhist missionaries
from India labour in China, but many Chinese monks showed their
zeal for the newly adopted religion by making pilgrimages to the
holy places in India. A few of them wrote interesting accounts,
still extant, of what they saw and heard in their travels. Of
these pilgrims the most noted are Fahien, who travelled in India
and Ceylon in the years A.D. 399-414, and Hiouen-Tsang who made
extensive travels in India two centuries later (A.D. 629-645).
The supplanting of the earlier form of Buddhism in the northern
countries of India in the second century led to a corresponding
change in the Buddhism of China. The later missionaries, being
mostly from the North of India, brought with them the new
doctrine, and in a short time the Mahayana or Northern Buddhism
prevailed. Two of the bodhisattvas of Mahayana theology became
the favourite objects of worship with the Chinese-- Amitabha,
lord of the Sukhavati paradise, and Avalokitesvara,
extravagantly praised in the "Lotus of the True Law" as ready to
extricate from every sort of danger those who think of him or
cherish his name. The latter, known as Fousa Kwanyin, is
worshipped, now as a male deity, again as the goddess of mercy,
who comes to the relief of the faithful. Amitabha goes by the
Chinese name Amita, or Mito. Offerings of flowers and incense
made before his statues and the frequent repetition, of his name
are believed to ensure a future life of bliss in his distant
Western paradise. An excessive devotion to statues and relics,
the employment of magic arts to keep off evil spirits, and the
observance of many of the gross superstitions of Taoism,
complete the picture of Buddhism in China, a sorry
representation of what Buddha made known to men. Chinese
Buddhism was introduced into Korea in the fourth century, and
from there taken to Japan two centuries later. The Buddhism of
these countries is in the main like that of China, with the
addition of a number of local superstitions. Annam was also
evangelized by Chinese Buddhists at an early period.
Tibetan Buddhiism (Lamaism)
Buddhism was first introduced into Tibet in the latter part of
the seventh century, but it did not begin to thrive till the
ninth century. In 1260, the Buddhist conqueror of Tibet, Kublai
Khan, raised the head lama, a monk of the great Sakja monastery,
to the position of spiritual and temporal ruler. His modern
successors have the title of Dalai Lama. Lamaism is based on the
Northern Buddhism of India, after it had become saturated with
the disgusting elements of Siva worship. Its deities are
innumerable, its idolatry unlimited. It is also much given to
the use of magic formulas and to the endless repetition of
sacred names. Its favourite formula is, Om mani padme hum (O
jewel in the lotus, Amen), which, written on streamers exposed
to the wind, and multiplied on paper slips turned by hand or
wind or water, in the so-called prayer-wheels, is thought to
secure for the agent unspeakable merit. The Dalai Lama, residing
in the great monastery at Lhasa, passes for the incarnation of
Amitabha, the Buddha of the Sukhavati paradise. Nine months
after his death, a newly born babe is selected by divination as
the reincarnate Buddha.
Catholic missionaries to Tibet in the early part of the last
century were struck by the outward resemblances to Catholic
liturgy and discipline that were presented by Lamaism--its
infallible head, grades of clergy corresponding to bishop and
priest, the cross, mitre, dalmatic, cope, censer, holy water,
etc. At once voices were raised proclaiming the Lamaistic origin
of Catholic rites and practices. Unfortunately for this shallow
theory, the Catholic Church was shown to have possessed these
features in common with the Christian Oriental churches long
before Lamaism was in existence. The wide propagation of
Nestorianism over Central and Eastern Asia as early as A.D. 635
offers a natural explanation for such resemblances as are
accretions on Indian Buddhism. The missionary zeal of Tibetan
lamas led to the extension of their religion to Tatary in the
twelfth and following centuries. While Northern Buddhism was
thus exerting a widespread influence over Central and Eastern
Asia, the earlier form of Buddhism was making peaceful conquests
of the countries and islands in the South. In the fifth century
missionaries from Ceylon evangelized Burma. Within the next two
centuries, it spread to Siam, Cambodia, Java, and adjacent
islands.
Statistics
The number of Buddhists throughout the world is commonly
estimated at about four hundred and fifty millions, that is,
about one-third of the human race. But on this estimate the
error is made of classing an the Chinese and Japanese as
Buddhists. Professor Legge, whose years of experience in China
give special weight to his judgment, declares that the Buddhists
in the whole world are not more than, one hundred millions,
being far outnumbered not only by Christians, but also by the
adherents of Confucianism and Hinduism. Professor Monier
Williams holds the same views. Even if Buddhism, however,
outranked Christianity in the number of adherents, it would be a
mistake to attribute to the religion of Buddha, as some do, a
more successful propagandism than to the religion of Christ. The
latter has made its immense conquests, not by compromising with
error and superstition, but by winning souls to the exclusive
acceptance of its saving truths. Wherever it has spread, it has
maintained its individuality. On the other hand, the vast
majority of the adherents of Buddhism cling to forms of creed
and worship that Buddha, if alive, would reprobate. Northern
Buddhism became the very opposite of what Buddha taught to men,
and in spreading to foreign lands accommodated itself to the
degrading superstitions of the peoples it sought to win. It is
only the Southern Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam who
deserve to be identified with the order founded by Buddha. They
number at most but thirty millions of souls.
V. BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY
Between Buddhism and Christianity there are a number of
resemblances, at first sight striking.
+ The Buddhist order of monks and nuns offers points of
similarity with Christian monastic systems, particularly the
mendicant orders.
+ There are moral aphorisms ascribed to Buddha that are not
unlike some of the sayings of Christ.
+ Most of all, in the legendary life of Buddha, which in its
complete form is the outcome of many centuries of accretion,
there are many parallelisms, some more, some less striking, to
the Gospel stories of Christ.
A few third-rate scholars taking for granted that all these
resemblances are pre-Christian, and led by the fallacious
principle that resemblance always implies dependence, have
vainly tried to show that Christian monasticism is of Buddhist
origin, and that Buddhist thought and legend have been freely
incorporated into the Gospels. To give greater speciousness to
their theory, they have not scrupled to press into service,
besides the few bona fide resemblances many others that were
either grossly exaggerated, or fictitious, or drawn from
Buddhist sources less ancient than the Gospels. If, from this
vast array of alleged Buddhist infiltrations, all these
exaggerations, fictions, and anachronisms are eliminated, the
points of resemblance that remain are, with perhaps one
exception, such as may be explained on the ground of independent
origin.
The exception is the story of Buddha's conversion from the
worldly life of a prince to the life of an ascetic, which was
transformed by some Oriental Christian of the seventh century
into the popular medieval tale of "Barlaam and Josaphat". Here
is historic evidence of the turning of a Buddhist into a
Christian legend just as, on the other hand, the fifth-century
sculptures of Gospel scenes on the ruined Buddhist monasteries
of Jamalgiri, in Northern Panjab, described in the scholarly
work of Fergusson and Burgess, "The Cave Temples of India",
offer reliable evidence that the Buddhists of that time did not
scruple to embellish the Buddha legend with adaptations from
Christian sources.
But is there any historical basis for the assertion that
Buddhist influence was a factor in the formation of Christianity
and of the Christian Gospels? The advocates of this theory
pretend that the rock-inscriptions of Asoka bear witness to the
spread of Buddhism over the Greek-speaking world as early as the
third century B.C., since they mention the flourishing existence
of Buddhism among the Yavanas, i.e. Greeks within the dominion
of Antiochus. But in the unanimous judgment of first-rate
scholars, the Yavanas here mentioned mean simply and solely the
Greek-speaking peoples on the extreme frontier next to India,
namely, Bactria and the Kabul valley. Again the statement in the
late Buddhist chronicle, Mahavansa, that among the Buddhists who
came to the dedication of a great Stupa in Ceylon in the second
century B.C., "were over thirty thousand monks from the vicinity
of Alassada, the capital of the Yona country" is taken to prove
that long before the time of Christ, Alexandria in Egypt was the
centre of flourishing Buddhist communities. It is true that
Alassada is the Pali for Alexandria; but the best scholars are
agreed that the city here meant is not the ancient capital of
Egypt, but as the text indicates, the chief city of the Yona
country, the Yavana country of the rock-inscriptions, namely,
Bactria and vicinity. And so, the city referred to is most
likely Alexandria ad Caucasum.
In short, there is nothing in Buddhist records that may be taken
as reliable evidence for the spread of Buddhism westward to the
Greek world as early as the foundation of the Christian
religion. That Buddhist institutions were at that time unknown
in the West may be safely inferred from the fact that Buddhism
is absolutely ignored in the literary and archaeological remains
of Palestine, Egypt, and Greece. There is not a single remains
of Buddhist monastery or stupa in any of these countries; not a
single Greek translation of a Buddhist book; not a single
reference in all Greek literature to the existence of a Buddhist
community in the Greek world. The very name of Buddha is
mentioned for the first time only in the writings of Clement of
Alexandria (second century). To explain the resemblances in
Christianity to a number of pre-Christian features of Buddhism,
there is no need of resorting to the hypothesis that they were
borrowed. Nothing is more common in the study of comparative
ethnology and religion than to find similar social and religious
customs practised by peoples too remote to have had any
communication with one another. How easily the principle of
ascetic detachment from the world may lead to a community life
in which celibacy as observed, may be seen in the monastic
systems that have prevailed not only among Buddhists, Essenes,
and Christians, but also among the early Aztecs and Incas in the
New World. Nor is this so strange when it is recalled that men
everywhere have, to a large extent, the same daily experiences,
the same feelings, the desires. As the laws of human thought are
every here the same, it lies in the very nature of things that
men, in so far as they have the same experiences, or face the
same religious needs, will think the same thoughts, and give
expression to them in sayings and customs that strike the
unreflecting old server by their similarity. It is only by
losing sight of this fundamental truth that one can unwittingly
fall into the error of assuming that resemblance always implies
dependence.
It is chiefly the legendary features of Buddha's life, many of
which are found for the first time only in works of later date
than the Gospels, that furnish the most striking resemblances to
certain incidents related of Christ in the Gospels, resemblances
which might with greater show of reason be traced to a common
historic origin. If there has been any borrowing here, it is
plainly on the side of Buddhism. That Christianity made its way
to Northern India in the first two centuries is not only a
matter of respectable tradition, but is supported by weighty
archaeological evidence. Scholars of recognized ability beyond
the suspicion of undue bias in favour of Christianity--Weber,
Goblet d'Alviella, and others--think it very likely that the
Gospel stories of Christ circulated by these early Christian
communities in India were used by the Buddhists to enrich the
Buddha legend, just as the Vishnuites built up the legend of
Krishna on many striking incidents in the life of Christ.
The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects
that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of
enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its
inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ. In the first place,
the very foundation on which Buddhism rests--the doctrine of
karma with its implied transmigrations--is gratuitous and false.
This pretended law of nature, by which the myriads of gods,
demons, men, and animals are but the transient forms of rational
beings essentially the same, but forced to this diversity in
consequence of varying degrees of merit and demerit in former
lives, is a huge superstition in flat contradiction to the
recognized laws of nature, and hence ignored by men of science.
Another basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to
recognize man's dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and
by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha
substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colourless
system of philosophy. It is entirely lacking in those powerful
motives to right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that
spring from the consecration of religious men and women to the
dependence on a personal all-loving God. Hence it is that
Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish
utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of
Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love
for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer.
Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of
nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential
considerations. Not infrequently one meets the assertion that
Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out to struggling humanity an
end utterly unselfish. This is a mistake. Not to speak of the
popular Swarga, or heaven, with its positive, even sensual
delights the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss does
not make it the less an object of interested desire. Far from
being an unselfish end, Nirvana is based wholly on the motive of
self-love. It thus stands on a much lower level than the
Christian ideal, which, being primarily and essentially a union
of friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives of
disinterested as well as interested love.
Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A
strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that
life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence
is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the
dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against
nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The
highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by
bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana.
Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and
in consequence does injustice to the individual. All legitimate
desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned.
The cultivation of music is forbidden. Researches in natural
science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is
limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of
Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value.
The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference
to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came
that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again
Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. Marriage is held in
contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of
life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man,
Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which
recommends virginity but at the same time teaches that marriage
is a sacred union and a source of sanctification. Buddhist
pessimism likewise does injustice to society. It has set the
seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor.
Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and
refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The perfect man is
to subsist not by the labour of his hands but on the alms of
inferior men. In the religion of Christ, "the carpenter's son",
a healthier view prevails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and
every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man's
welfare.
Buddhism has accomplished but little for the uplifting of
humanity in comparison with Christianity. One of its most
attractive features, which, unfortunately, has become wellnigh
obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and
needy. Between Buddhists and Brahmins there was a commendable
rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicine. But
this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the
prolonged nursing of unfortunates stricken with contagious and
incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the
bringing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the
care of the aged and insane. Asylums and hospitals in this sense
are unknown to Buddhism. The consecration of religious men and
women to the lifelong service of afflicted humanity is foreign
to dreamy Buddhist monasticism. Again, the wonderful efficacy
displayed by the religion of Christ in purifying the morals of
pagan Europe has no parallel in Buddhist annals. Wherever the
religion of Buddha has prevailed, it has proved singularly
inefficient to lift society to a high standard of morality. It
has not weaned the people of Tibet and Mongolia from the custom
of abandoning the aged, nor the Chinese from the practice of
infanticide. Outside the establishment of the order of nuns, it
has done next to nothing to raise woman from her state of
degradation in Oriental lands. It has shown itself utterly
helpless to cope with the moral plagues of humanity. The
consentient testimony of witnesses above the suspicion of
prejudice establishes the fact that at the present day Buddhist
monks are everywhere strikingly deficient in that moral
earnestness and exemplary conduct which distinguished the early
followers of Buddha. In short, Buddhism is all but dead. In its
huge organism the faint pulsations of life are still
discernible, but its power of activity is gone. The spread of
European civilization over the East will inevitably bring about
its extinction.
CHARLES F. AIKEN
Guillaume Bude
Guillaume Budé
(Budaeus).
A French Hellenist, born at Paris, 1467; died there 22 August,
1540. He studied at Paris and Orleans but with little success or
application. Subsequently, however, he seemed to acquire a
sudden passion for learning. After taking lessons in Greek from
Hermonymus, and profiting by the advice of Joannes Lascaris, he
attained great proficiency in that language. He studied at the
same time, philosophy, theology, law, and medicine, in all of
which he made rapid progress. Budé's abilities were recognized
by Louis XII, whose secretary he became after his return from a
successful embassy on occasion of the coronation of Pope Julius
II. He was sent to Rome again on a mission to Pope Leo X (1515),
but was recalled at his own request and accompanied Francis I in
his travels. It was then that he suggested to the king the
creation of a college for the study of the three languages
(Greek, Hebrew, and Latin), afterwards the "College de France."
Empowered to ask Erasmus to take charge of it (1517-18), he
failed in his mission, and the college was not founded until
1530. At his suggestion, also, Francis declined to prohibit
printing, as the Sorbonne had advised (1533). Literary France
owes to Budé's efforts the foundation of the "Bibliothèque de
Fontainebleau", which was the origin of the "Bibliothèque
Nationale". His letters to Erasmus, Thomas More, Sadolet,
Rabelais, and others written in Greek, Latin, or French, were
the delight of scholars of the time. Budé was suspected of
leanings towards Calvinism, and certain parts of his
correspondence with Erasmus seemed to countenance this
suspicion. However, it was disproved after his death. Having
already translated into Latin many of Plutarch's Lives
(1502-05), he pubIished his "Annotationes in XXIV libros
Pandectarum" (Paris, 1508), in which, by applying philology and
history to the Roman law, he revolutionized the study of
jurisprudence. Budé's treatise on Roman coins and weights, "De
asse et partibus ejus" (Venice, 1522), was the best book on the
subject written up to that time. In 1520 he published a
philosophical and moral dissertation, "De contemptu rerum
fortuitarum"; in 1527, "De studio litterarum", in which he urges
youth not to neglect their literary studies. Greek, however, was
his favourite study and we have from him, "Commentarii linguae
graecae" (Paris, 1529), which greatly advanced the study of
Greek literature in France, "De transitu helenismi ad
Christianismum" (Paris, 1534), and various other works of
similar scope though of minor importance. His compIete works
were published at Bêsle in 1557.
M. DE MOREIRA
Budweis
Budweis
(Czech, BUDEJOVICE; Lat. BUDOVICIUM; BOHEMO-BUDVICENSIS).
A diocese situated in Southern Bohemia, suffragan to the
Archdiocese of Prague. Although projected since 1630, the
diocese was not erected until the reign of Emperor Joseph II, by
a papal Bull of 20 September, 1785. By the provisions of this
Bull, the civil districts of Budweis, Tabor, Prachatitz, and
Klattau were separated from the Archdiocese of Prague and
erected into the new Diocese of Budweis, thus giving it an area
of 5600 sq. miles with a population of 660,000. The church of
St. Nicholas at Budweis was made cathedral, and the Archbishop
of Prague contributed 3300 Rhenish marks (present value 10,080
kronen or $2,016) towards its endowment.
The following bishops have occupied the See of Budweis: (1)
Johann Prokop, Count von Schaffgotsche (1785-1813), formerly
rector of the Generalseminar at Brunn, and canon at Olmütz; (2)
Ernst Konstantin Ruzicka (1815-45); (3) Joseph Andreas Lindauer
(1845-50); (4) Johann Valerian Jirsik (1851-83), especially
noteworthy for the part he took in the development of the
diocese; (5) Franz, Count Schonborn (1883-85), later Cardinal
and Archbishop of Prague, d. 1899; (6) Martin Joseph Riha (7
July, 1885-6 February, 1907), the first diocesan ecclesiastic to
be appointed Bishop of Budweis. The present administrator (1907)
is the Vicar Capitular, J. Hulka. In conformity with the decree
of the provincial council of Prague (1860) three diocesan synods
have been held (1870, 1872, 1875).
STATISTICS
According to the organization of 1857 the Diocese of Budweis is
divided into the Vicariate-General of Budweis on which depend
the archdeaconry of Krummau, the provostship of Neuhaus, and 8
archipresbyterates: Budweis, Klattau, Krummau, Neuhaus, Taus,
and Winterberg, with 4 vicariates each, and Strakonitz and Tabor
with 5 vicariates each, making a total of 34 vicariates. Among
the 432 ecclesiastical divisions for the cure of souls, there
are two archdeaconries, 57 deaneries, 366 parishes, 5
expositures, and 1 administrature, with a total population
(1907) of 1,123,113. This number is divided as follows:
1,106,729 Roman Catholics (an average of 98.1 per cent, in many
vicariates 99.92 percent of the whole population); 1589 members
of the Augsburg Evangelical Church; 2302 members of the Helvetic
Evangelical Church; 12,447 Jews; and 46 of no religious
persuasion. The population of 282 of the ecclesiastical
divisions (68.9 per cent), 761,568 is almost entirely Czech;
that of 110 (15.34 per cent), 181,790, purely German; that of 25
(10.66 per cent), 119,830, predominantly Czech; and of 15 (5.1
per cent), 59,925, prevailingly German. The average population
of a parish is 2000, the population of the largest, Budweis,
being 45,528, and of the smallest, Korkushatten, 414.
The clergy actively engaged in the ministry number 849 secular
and 136 regular priests. The latter are thus divided: 59
Cistercians from Hohenfurth, with 4 professed clerics; 18
Brothers of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, a congregation
founded at Budweis in 1888, with 5 clerics, 18 lay brothers, and
11 novices; 11 Premonstratensians; 11 Knights of Malta; 3
Minorites; 4 Reformed Franciscans, with 5 lay brothers; 3 Calced
and 4 Discalced Augustinians, with 4 lay brothers; 6
Redemptorists, with 4 lay brothers; 6 Servites with 4 lay
brothers; 4 Capuchins, with 4 lay brothers; 3 Piarists.
Twenty-nine parishes are attended by members of religious
orders; 2 are granted by free collation, i.e. bestowed by the
metropolitan; and the rest are subject to patronage, 88 to
ecclesiastical patronage. The cathedral chapter consists of a
provost, a dean, who is also the urban dean of Budweis, a
cantor, and 3 capitular canons to which are added 4 honorary
canons; the consistory has 9 members. Young men are trained for
the priesthood in the theological seminary at Budweis, which
provides for those speaking the different languages found in the
diocese; it has 6 professors and 103 students, 3 in the Bohemian
College in Rome. There is also in Budweis an episcopal school
for boys (petit séminaire) without a special gymnasium attached
(founded 1853).
FEMALE RELIGIOUS ORDERS, SHRINES, CHURCHES, ETC.
In the diocese there are 7 orders of women, with 362 sisters, 90
novices and lay sisters, and 40 houses; 216 Poor School Sisters
of Notre Dame (since 1849); 129 Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo
(1842); 93 Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar
(founded at Budweis in 1887); 2 Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul;
3 Sisters of the Holy Cross; 3 Servites; and 2 Franciscans. The
great mass of the people are engaged in agricultural pursuits
and are in general religiously inclined. Popular missions
(Volksmissionen) are frequent, 450 of them being held between
1850 and 1897 in 228 parishes, 334 by Redemptorists and 112 by
Jesuits. The chief confraternities are: the Confraternity of the
Rosary, in 230 parishes, with 30,000 members; the Confraternity
for the Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament and the
Adornment of Poor Churches, founded in 1859, in 238 parishes,
which has 15,000 members and disburses yearly 5,000 kronen
($1,000); the Confraternity of St. Michael in 265 parishes, with
5,000 members, who contribute annually 4,000 kronen ($800)
toward Peter's-pence.
The principal places of pilgrimage are: Brunn, founded in 1715,
visited yearly by 300 processions; Rimau, built at the end of
the seventeenth century, with 100 annual processions; Gojau
mentioned as early as 1469; and Kremeschnik, built in 1632.
Here, as in the rest of Bohemia, ecclesiastical edifices of
earlier centuries were greatly damaged during the religious wars
of the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. The prevailing
architectural style is baroque. Mention should be made of the
Romanesque church of Muhlhausen, built between 1184 and 1250,
formerly a Premonstratensian church; the Cistercian
abbey-churches of Goldenkron (1263-1300), and Hohenfurth
(1259-1350), built in Gothic style; the two-naved church of St.
Ægidius in Muhlhausen, originally Romanesque (in the twelfth
century), in 1407 rebuilt in the Gothic style; the cathedral at
Budweis (1642-49) and the parish church at Prestitz (1748-73)
are examples of the baroque style, the latter designed by Kilian
Dienzenhofer. Popular Catholic associations are not at present
very numerous. There are but two Catholic weekly papers in the
diocese. It is only within recent years that any serious
attempts have been made to organize the Catholics of the
diocese, both on political and non-partisan lines. These efforts
have so far met with scant success; in the past, therefore, the
territory of the diocese has been represented in the Austrian
Parliament by Liberal deputies.
Trajer, Historisch-statistische Beschreibung der Diozese Budweis
(Budweis, 1862); Mardetschlager-Trajer, Geschichte des Bistums
Budweis (ibid., 1885); Ladenbauer, Das soziale Wirken der
kathol. Kirche in Oesterriech: Diozese Budweis (Vienna, 1899);
Catalogus Cleri dioec. Budvicen, 1907 (Budweis, 1907).
KARL HILGENREINER
Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires
The federal capital of the Argentine Republic, and the second
city of the Latin races in the world (having a population of
1,100,000), as well as the first in commercial importance among
the cities of South America, is situated in latitude
34°35'30"S., and longitude 58°22'20"W., on the right bank of the
Río de la Plata, at an elevation of about 65 feet. The Río de la
Plata (Plate, or Silver, River), the estuary of which has a
maximum width of more than 108 miles, is about 43 miles wide at
Buenos Aires.
With a mean annual death-rate of 14 per thousand, the city takes
rank in respect of sanitation with the most advanced cities of
the world. The mean temperature is 62°6'F., snow never falls,
and hail only rarely, and the thermometer ranges from 59°F. to
82°4'F., at times, however, reaching 95°. The north wind, humid
and warm, and in summer even suffocating, charges the atmosphere
with electricity, causing general debility and nervous troubles;
but this wind never lasts for more than three days, and
generally changes to a south-east wind, bringing rain or storm,
upon which there follows the cold, dry south-west wind called
the Pampero, which clears the sky. The vicissitudes of weather
are extremely abrupt, with changes of temperature amounting
sometimes to as much as 36°, with violent winds. The Pampero,
highly charged with ozone, exercises a disinfecting influence
and serves to purify the vitiated atmosphere of the thickly
populated sections of the city. The healthiness of Buenos Aires
(in English, literally, Good Airs) arises from two other most
important causes; the supply of running water and the drainage
system -- as to both of which something will be said later on.
The mean annual rainfall recorded in the five years from 1899 to
1903 was a little more than 43.164 inches. The barometer
ordinarily ranges from 29.825 inches to 30.03 inches.
At the time of its founding in 1580 this settlement had 300
inhabitants; in 1744 the population was 11,118; 40,000 in 1801
(estimated); 62,228 in 1822; 177,787 in 1869; 404,000 in 1887;
663,854 in 1895; 950,891 in 1904; 1,084,280 in December, 1906;
1,109,202 (estimated) in July, 1907. All of these amounts,
except the third and the last, are taken from the official
census. Of the total annual increase in population (46.3 per
thousand), 19 to 20 per thousand is due to excess of birth-rate
over death-rate; the rest being the effect of immigration. In
the 950,981 inhabitants reported in the census of 18 September,
1904, the Argentines numbered 523,041; the foreigners, 427,850
(228,556 of the latter number being Italians, and 105,206
Spaniards). Classified by religious beliefs the figures were:
823,926 Catholics; 24,996 Protestants; 6,065 Jews; 8,054 of
various other creeds; 13,335 professing no religious belief, and
74,515 unspecified.
The municipality of Buenos Aires is a federal district of 73 3/8
square miles (19,006 hectares). The governing authority of this
district, vested in the president of the republic, is exercised
through a minister of the interior and a chief of police, for
the maintenance of public order, and in a superintendent
(intendiente de la capital) and a municipal council, for the
construction and management of public works. The police force
carry modern firearms. Both the municipal council and the
superintendent have been since 1901 appointed by the president
with the assent of the senate, though the question of reverting
to the former system of popular election was, in 1907, under
discussion by the Legislature. The municipal revenue in 1904,
was $5,571,840 (5,804,000 pesos oro). In the older portions of
Buenos Aires the streets are from 30 to 40 feet wide; the few
avenues as yet in existence have a width, generally, of about 57
feet, though the Avenida de Mayo, nearly a mile in length, is 99
feet wide. The paving of the city, formerly defective, has gone
on improving from year to year until the present time, when 70
per cent of the public thoroughfares is paved with granite over
a bed of cement or sand, 15 per cent with macadam, asphalt, or
carob block, and the remainder with cobblestone. There are
upwards of 300 miles of street railway, mostly electric, the
traffic on which for the year 1903 was registered at 133,719,218
passengers.
Since the cholera epidemic of 1867-68, and the yellow fever of
1872, two public engineering achievements have most powerfully
co-operated towards the healthfulness of the city: the
waterworks and the drainage system. The supply of drinking water
is derived from the Río de la Plata by means of a great pumping
tower whence the water passes, through a tunnel three and
two-thirds miles in length, to the reservoirs, to be filtered,
clarified, and then raised by powerful pumps to the monumental
structure known as the Depósito de las aguas corrientes. In this
building twelve iron tanks, each 134 1/2 feet square and 13 feet
deep, are arranged in three tiers of four each, at different
levels. These twelve tanks have an aggregate capacity of 72,000
tons of water. The drainage system includes an installation in
every house, connected scientifically with the cloaca máxima, or
main sewer of the city, which runs a distance of 19 miles and 7
furlongs (32 km.) and discharges into the Río de la Plata
opposite Berasategui. The rain-drainage pipes are connected with
the main system in such a manner that in case of a heavy
downpour, the excess of water is turned aside to a special
rain-drainage conduit, having a capacity of 1419 cubic feet per
second, which, after running a distance of nearly two and
three-quarter miles, discharges its contents at a point north of
Dársena Norte. The establishment of these two great systems of
sanitary works has lowered the death-rate from 30 per thousand,
in 1887, to 14 per thousand, in 1904.
Other municipal institutions worthy of mention are the great
abattoirs of Liniers, which cover an area of more than 61 acres,
and from which 700,000 carcasses of beef and 900,000 of mutton,
ready for the market, are annually turned out, and the
produce-market, an immense depository where the wheat, wool,
leather, etc., produced in the country are collected for
exportation. The state university of the republic, with
faculties of law, medicine, engineering, philosophy, and
literature, established in separate buildings, is situated at
Buenos Aires; also many institutions of secondary and primary
education, both public and private.
From very early times Buenos Aires has been generally known
throughout South America by the colloquial name of El Puerto,
and to this day the natives of the city are called Portenos,
rather than Bonarenses, or Buenos-Aireans. Nevertheless, until
1885, and even later, El Puerto, being only a river port, and as
the bottom of the river had gone on rising with the deposits of
mud brought down by the stream, the river front could not offer
a sufficient depth of water for vessels of even moderate
draught; which were, therefore, obliged to anchor many miles
away from the bank. The improvements of Puerto Madero, however,
effected between 1890 and 1899, have now attracted ocean
steamers of the highest tonnage. Vessels of lower tonnage anchor
at the little port of Boca del Riachuelo, the mouth of a
comparatively small stream which empties into the Plata south of
the city. Both these ports are subject to the necessity of
constant dredging to counteract the silting-up of the bottom by
the action of the stream. The number of entries and clearings at
these two ports amounts to 6000 in the year, aggregating more
than 28,000,000 tons. The commerce of Buenos Aires is 849 per
thousand of the imports, and 515 per thousand of exports of the
whole republic.
The first foundation of Buenos Aires took place in the beginning
of the year 1536, under Don Pedro de Mendoza, Gentleman of the
Bedchamber to the Emperor Charles V and Adelantado of the Río de
la Plata. In 1541 it was deliberately depopulated by Don Domingo
Martínez de Irala, the governor, its inhabitants being
transferred to Asunción, in Paraguay. The second founding took
place 11 June, 1580, under Juan de Garay, Lieutenant-Governor
and Captain-General for the Adelantado Juan Ortiz de Zarate.
Since its first foundation the place had been called the Port of
Santa María de Buenos Aires, and the city was called Santísima
Trinidad, taking its name from the day (Trinity Sunday, 29 May,
1580) on which Garay arrived there with his followers, and
erected the Royal Standard in anticipation of the formalities of
the founding proper. Hence the name usual in ancient documents:
Ciudad de la Santísima Trinidad, Puerto de Buenos Aires.
Santísima Trinidad is still an alternative title of the
archdiocese. Buenos Aires in 1617 was made the capital of the
province of Río de la Plata, which was created a vice-royalty in
1776. In 1593 the city was threatened by the expedition under
Hawkins sent against the Spanish possessions in South America by
Queen Elizabeth of England; in 1627 by the Dutch who had taken
possession of Brazil; in 1657 by the French expedition of
Timoleon Osmat, a soldier of fortune; in 1698 by another French
squadron; in 1700 by a Danish. But on none of these occasions
was the city actually attacked. A British expedition under
Popham obtained a footing in Buenos Aires (27 June, 1806), but
the place was recovered by conquest on the 12th of the following
August, and defended against a new and formidable expedition
commanded by Whitelock (2-5 July, 1807) by the country people
organized as a militia force, who, on the former occasion, made
prisoners of the invading force and, on the latter, forced a
definitive evacuation of the territory. From 1810 to 1824 the
city was a principal centre of the uprising which led to the
separation of the Spanish-American colonies from the mother
country.
ARCHDIOCESE OF BUENOS AIRES
(BONAERENSIS; SANTISIMA TRINIDAD)
The Diocese of Buenos Aires was formed upon the dismemberment of
the original Diocese of Asunción, in Paraguay, by a Bull of Paul
III in 1620. Its first bishop was Pedro Carranza, a Carmelite,
who was succeeded by a series of nineteen bishops, ending in
1855, when a Bull of Pius IX created Buenos Aires as
archdiocese. This archdiocese comprises, besides the federal
district with its 1,100,000 inhabitants, the territories of Río
Negro, Chubut, and Santa Cruz, commonly known as Patagonia, or
Tierra del Fuego, and containing altogether a population of
41,964. The city itself is divided into 22 parishes and 2
mission (succursal) parishes, each with its church. Besides
these parish churches there are 50 churches and public chapels,
also 80 other chapels, many of them semi-public, connected with
religious and charitable institutions. (For some account of
particular churches see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.) The archbishop is
assisted by an auxiliary bishop and two vicars-general. The
metropolitan chapter consists of a dean, five other dignitaries,
and five canons (a theologian, a penitentiary, a canon of the
first class, a canon of the second class, and a secretary).
There are in the archdiocese 254 secular priests. The seminary,
situated at Villa Devoto, is a fine edifice with a public chapel
dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. It is expected that this
establishment will be converted into the central seminary of the
republic and a Pontifical university of sacred sciences. there
are 54 religious communities. Pious associations for seculars,
women as well as men, are numerous, particularly those devoted
to works of charity, upon which the people of Buenos Aires spend
immense sums. Catholic colleges for primary and secondary
instruction are numerous. Among those conducted by religious are
San Jose, under the Bayonne Fathers; Salvador, under the Fathers
of the Society of Jesus; the Dominican college of Lacordaire;
that of the Escolapios, and that of the Brothers of the
Christian Doctrine. Active efforts are being made to establish a
Catholic university. Among the various periodicals the "Revista
Eclesiástica del Arzobispado" and the daily "El Pueblo" deserve
special mention. The workingmen have organized themselves into
Catholic clubs, the membership of which now exceeds 40,000.
It is to be remarked that the Catholics of this city, like those
of the whole republic, whether failing to realize exactly the
existing social conditions, or because they have been too much
occupied with political contentions, have restricted their
efforts to the formation of charitable associations, doing
nothing, until very recently, in the direction of
socio-political organization. A sectarian persecution which
arose during the years 1884-88 aroused the dormant zeal of the
faithful, and a Catholic congress was held which produced
copious results. A congress of Franciscan tertiaries was held in
1906, and a second congress of Catholics in general has been
convoked for the year 1907, through the initiative of the
Congregation of the Immaculate Conception and Saint Aloysius
Gonzaga in the College of San Salvador.
PABLO HERNANDEZ
Buffalo
Buffalo
Diocese established 23 April, 1847, now comprises the counties
of Erie, Niagara, Genesee, Orleans, Chautauqua, Wyoming,
Cattaraugus, and Allegany, in the State of New York, U.S.A., an
area of 6,357 square miles. It was set apart from the great
Diocese of New York and the see located at Buffalo on Lake Erie,
the territory comprising nearly one-third of the State of New
York. In 1868 the Diocese of Rochester was formed from the
eastern counties of this territory; and in 1896, after Bishop
Ryan's death, four more counties, Steuben, Schuyler, Chemung,
and Tioga, were taken from the Diocese of Buffalo and added to
the Rochester jurisdiction.
INDIAN MISSIONS
Two of the nations of the Iroquois League, the Senecas and the
Cayugas, dwelt in this region before the advent of the white
men. The Senecas had villages in the valley of the Genesee about
twenty miles from Lake Ontario, and the Cayugas erected their
cabins near the lake which still bears their name. The Seneca
was the most populous and warlike nation of the League. In their
frequent raids into the country of the Hurons of Northern
Canada, they carried off many captives who had been instructed
in Christianity by the French missionaries from Quebec. So
numerous were these Huron Christian captives that they formed an
entire village, which was called St. Michael's, in memory of
their old Huron home. Jesuit missionaries visited these towns in
1656, and cheered the Christian captives who had lost all hope
of ever again beholding a "Black Robe". In 1669 this village was
located in the north-east part of the present town of East
Bloomfield. The Rev. Father Fremin, a Jesuit, established his
residence in this town in the fall of 1668, built a chapel, and
said the first Mass there, 3 November, 1668. Three years later
the Rev. James Pierron became the resident missionary at
Gannagaro, or St. James, a Seneca town situated on Boughton
Hill, south of the present village of Victor. The principal
village of the Cayugas was situated about three and one-half
miles south of Union Springs, near Great Gully Brook. This was
called St. Joseph's by the Jesuits. Father Carheil built a
chapel there in November, 1668, and immediately began his work
of instructing. There was another town of the Cayugas at the
northern extremity of Seneca Lake. Another chapel was built in
the large Seneca town of Gandachioragon, or Totiakton, which was
called the Immaculate Conception by the Jesuits. This was
situated near Lima, about ten miles west of St. James.
The Jesuits had four or five prosperous missions within the
territory of the original Diocese of Buffalo, in which they
laboured successfully for ten years until English intrigue and
subsequent wars with the French forced them from the field.
During those years they baptized nearly all the dying; they
imparted a general knowledge of Christianity to the two western
nations of the League; they strengthened the old Huron
Christians in their faith, and added several hundred Iroquois
converts to the Church. Many of the Iroquois chiefs sided with
the English, in the war of the latter against the French, and
the French missionaries were forced from the field of their
labours. Many of the Christian Indians had already abandoned
their homes in the Iroquois country for the new settlements on
the St. Lawrence, under the protection of the French; and many
more accompanied the Fathers in their flight, and settled on the
St. Regis, or at Caughnawaga, where they still practise the
Faith they acquired in their Iroquois homes. In the summer of
1669 the explorer, La Salle, with two Sulpicians and a party of
twenty-five men, started to explore the region of the Great
Lakes in search of a north-west passage to India. They skirted
along the southern shore of Lake Ontario, crossing the mouth of
Niagara River, until they reached Burlington Bay, where the
party disbanded. La Salle went again in 1678, with Father
Hennepin, in a large vessel which entered the Niagara River on
6th December, to the strains of the Te Deum. The next day a
party with Father Hennepin ascended the river in a canoe, and
landed on the northern shore, near the present suspension bridge
on the Canada side. On 11 December, 1678, they landed on the
other side of the river where Father Hennepin said Mass. This
was probably the first Mass celebrated within the present limits
of the Diocese of Buffalo. A little fort was built there as a
protection against Indian assault. Then they proceeded up the
river, about five miles about the Falls, where the "Griffon" was
built. Father Hennepin remained there all winter, holding
service for the men in a little chapel until the vessel was
towed up the river to the present harbour of Black Rock, where
it anchored until it was in readiness to sail as the first
vessel on the lakes.
CATHOLIC SETTLERS
After Denonville had destroyed the Seneca towns in 1687, he sent
a detachment of his army to establish a fort at the mouth of the
Niagara River. A garrison of one hundred men was left there with
a chaplain. Many died the following winter, and the fort was
abandoned. It was reoccupied in 1726, and from that date regular
services were held in the chapel until 1759, when the fort
capitulated to the English. Soon after the Revolutionary War the
Government began building military roads, and the State
legislature made appropriations for building highways, and these
offered intending settlers better facilities for proceeding
farther inland. There was a highway through the State before
1820, reaching to Lake Erie. Buffalo and Erie County offered
advantages to intending settlers, and about 1820 many Alsatians
located in the vicinity. Many of these were Catholics, but they
had no priest, and they could only keep alive the religious
spirit by family devotions. The Rev. Patrick Kelly, ordained by
Bishop Connolly of New York in 1821, was sent to minister to the
Catholics of the western part of the State. He visited Buffalo
the same year, and held one public service in a little frame
building on Pearl Street. The Rev. Stephen Badin was the first
priest to remain any length of time in Buffalo. His field of
labour was Kentucky, but sickness compelled him to seek rest. He
visited Buffalo for six weeks as the guest of Louis Le Couteulx,
who then lived at the corner of Main and Exchange Streets. Here
he said Mass for the Catholics of the town; and he urged them to
organize and form a congregation. Mr. Le Couteulx started the
good work by donating a site for church, cemetery, and priest's
residence, at the corner of Main and Edward Streets. The deed
was sent to Bishop Dubois as a New Year's gift in January, 1829.
Bishop Dubois visited Buffalo the same year and concluded that
the number of Catholics in the vicinity required the attention
of a resident priest, so the Rev. John Nicholas Mertz was sent
as the first pastor of Buffalo. On this occasion Bishop Dubois
sang a solemn high Mass in the court-house; and in the afternoon
a procession composed of different nationalities marched from
the court-house to the site for the new church where the ground
was blessed by the bishop. father Mertz rented a little frame
building on Pearl Street, back of the old Eagle tavern; and here
he held services until the "Lamb of God", a rough timber church,
was erected on the property at Main and Edward Streets. The
corner stone of this first church of the diocese was laid 8
July, 1831, but the church was not opened for services until the
following year. In the next five years congregations were formed
at Lancaster, Williamsville, Nor Bush, East Eden, and Lockport.
Father Mertz, with his assistant, the Rev. Alexander Pax, looked
after the spiritual interests of the Catholics of the first four
places, and the Rev. Bernard O'Reilly of Rochester attended the
Catholics of Lockport.
Buffalo grew quickly after becoming a city. The church on Main
Street was too small for the rapidly increasing numbers. The
English-speaking members withdrew from the church in 1837 and
formed a separate congregation, renting the second floor of a
building at the corner of Main Street and the Terrace; where the
Rev. Charles Smith said Mass for them once a month. Father Smith
was employed on the other Sundays at Java, or in looking after
the spiritual well-being of the Catholics employed in the
construction of the Genesee Valley Canal. Soon afterwards
property was bought at the corner of Ellicott and Batavia
Streets, for a church for the English-speaking Catholics of the
city. The Rev. John N. Neumann, who was afterwards Bishop of
Philadelphia, and who has been proposed for canonization went to
Buffalo in July, 1836, and laboured zealously for four years in
the missions of the Erie County and vicinity. The missionary
then had few of the comforts and conveniences of the present day
and Father Neumann was often compelled to tramp many miles over
rough roads, or through the forest, carrying his vestments on
his back, to say Mass or to administer to the sick. The Rev.
Bernard O'Reilly of Rochester, who was afterwards Bishop of
Hartford, also did effective work among those engaged in
building the Erie Canal and in constructing the locks at
Lockport. The Rev. Thomas McEvoy of Java attended to the
spiritual wants of the Catholics of three or four counties. He
resided at Java, and from this place he frequently visited
clusters of Catholics in Allegany, Wyoming, Steuben, and
Chautauqua counties. Among the lay people Louis Le Couteulx was
the greatest benefactor of the incipient church in Buffalo. He
located at Buffalo in 1803, and it was at his house, corner of
Main and Exchange Streets, that the Catholics were first
assembled and were urged to form a congregation. Besides
donating the site for the first church, he also gave the land
for the Deaf Mute Institute, the Infant Asylum, the Immaculate
Conception church, and the Buffalo Orphan asylum. Other lay
people of that period and later prominent in church work were:
Patrick Milton, Maurice Vaughn, Patrick Cannon, John Connolly,
Mrs. O'Rourke, Mrs. Rowen, Mrs. Kimmit, and Messrs. Ambrose,
Feldman, Fisher, Steffan, Dingens, Lautz, Paul, Diebold,
Gittere, Pfohl, Wechter, Doll, Smith, Miller, Hager, Guinther,
Vogt, Davis, John Straus, Gerhard Lang, and their families.
The Very Rev. John Timon, a Visitor General of the Congregation
of the Mission (Vincentians) was consecrated first Bishop of
Buffalo in the cathedral in New York, 17 October, 1847, by
Bishop Hughes. The new bishop appointed the Rev. Bernard
O'Reilly, pastor of St. Patrick's church, Rochester, his
vicar-general, and began a retreat for his priests; then he gave
missions for his people in the sixteen churches of the diocese.
Many of these were plain frame structures, without architectural
ornament, and many of them had no altar except a table or some
rough timber fitted up for the purpose. In many cases services
were held in rented buildings, especially where public works
attracted large numbers of men but gave no promise of permanent
settlement. Such was the case along the Erie Canal and the
Genesee Valley Canal, where services were held in the largest
workmen's shanty, or in the nearest town hall. Men engaged in
these public works were attracted by the fertility of the soil
or the advantages of localities, and sent for their families and
friends, and established homes in the western part of the State
along the lines of public traffic. Thus little Catholic
settlements were formed, and incipient congregations were
organized. The first Catholic congregations were made up of
settlers from the East or immigrants from Europe.
SCARCITY OF PRIESTS
The growth of the Church, before the advent of the bishop to the
western part of the State, was entirely from immigration. Many
were lost to the Church during this period because they had
settled in remote localities, and priests were scarce. Nearly
all the priests who laboured in Western New York during this
period were from Europe, and some were not permanently attached
to the diocese. The small number of priests could not visit
regularly the many small settlements in that extensive
territory, and many Catholics would not see a priest for months,
or even years. Under such conditions it was but natural that
some should fall away. Before there was a resident priest at
Buffalo people journeyed all the way to Albany to have their
children baptized, others took their children to Monroe,
Michigan, where there was a resident priest. When young people
decided to get married, two or three of the respectable old
people of the community were called in as witnesses; troth was
plighted, and the couple became man and wife, with the
understanding that as soon as a priest came the blessing of the
Church would be invoked upon the marriage. A journey to Albany
in those days was a difficult undertaking. It meant many days
travel through the forest, on horseback, by stage-coach, or
rough wagons. When the Erie Canal was built, part of the journey
could be made by packet boat; but as a rule people postponed the
reception of the sacraments until some priest went through this
region on his way to the Catholic settlements of the West, or in
transit between the East and Montreal or Quebec. Priests were
scarce for some years after Buffalo was made a diocese; and one
of bishop Timon's first labours was directed to the
establishment of colleges and seminaries for the education of
youth. He induced the Oblates, the Franciscans, and the Jesuits
to send communities to found colleges, and to assist in the
formation of parishes. The Oblate Fathers in August, 1851,
started a seminary and college in a brick building, which was
located on the site of the present cathedral rectory. This
institution was later transferred to Prospect Hill, on the site
of the present Holy Angels church property. The Franciscans in
1855 located at Ellicottville, but shortly after moved to
Allegany. The Jesuits started the present St. Michael's Church
and Canisius College (1851). After the advent of Bishop Timon
fallen-away Catholics began to return to the Church, and many
non-Catholics embraced the Faith. His missions and his lectures
in all the towns of the diocese awakened an interest in Catholic
teaching and practice; and from three to five hundred new
members were added to the Church each year through the
conversion of non-Catholics. Much of the prejudice also, which
existed in some localities, was dispelled by the diffusion of
knowledge of the Church.
BISHOPS OF THE SEE
(1) Bishop Timon died 16 April, 1867. He was born 12 February,
1797, at Conewago, Pennsylvania, and ordained at St. Louis,
Missouri, in June, 1825. For a long time he was a missionary in
Texas and in April, 1840, was named Prefect Apostolic there but
refused the office.
(2) The Very Rev. Stephen Vincent Ryan who, like his
predecessor, was a Visitor General of the Congregation of the
Mission, was appointed to succeed him as Bishop of Buffalo and
was consecrated 8 November, 1868. Bishop Ryan was born 1
January, 1825, at Almonte, Ontario, Upper Canada. Distinguished
for his piety, zeal, and learning, he continued the great work
of Bishop Timon. He died 10 April, 1896.
(3) The Rev. James E. Quigley, D.D., his successor, was
consecrated 24 February, 1897. Bishop Quigley's condemnation of
the attempt of the Socialists to identify their doctrines with
the principles of labour unionism, and thus wean men from their
allegiance to the Church, gained for him a national reputation.
He was promoted to the vacant archbishopric of Chicago, 19
February, 1903.
(4) The Rev. Charles H. Colton of New York, was next appointed
to the see and consecrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York,
24 August, 1903.
STATISTICS
There are 264 priests in the diocese; 168 secular, 96 of
religious orders; 142 churches with resident priests, 32 mission
churches, and 16 chapels; 54 Brothers and 1,085 Sisters of
religious orders, teaching 94 parochial schools, with 27,787
pupils. There is one university, Niagara, under the Lazarist
Fathers; five colleges for boys with 952 students; and two
seminaries for secular clergy, and one for religious, with 181
students. The seminary at Niagara is conducted by the Lazarists;
that at Allegany, by the Franciscans. The preparatory seminaries
are the college departments at Niagara and at Allegany, and the
colleges of Canisius, Holy Angels, and the Christian Brothers.
The Oblates have a seminary in Buffalo for candidates for their
order, and the Passionists have one in Dunkirk for their
students. There are 159 students in the large seminaries, 81 in
the preparatory, and 200 students in the university. There are
eight academies for young ladies, with 1,200 students. St.
John's Protectory for homeless, or wayward boys, founded in
1861, accommodates about 600 boys, who are taught some trade,
along with the elementary branches of education. A Deaf Mute
Institute, started in Buffalo in 1856, is now an important
institution, under the charge of the Sisters of St. Joseph, with
166 pupils. In 1861 Bishop Timon secured the sisters of St.
Francis to care for the aged; these sisters now have three
houses: one in Buffalo, one in Gardenville and one in
Williamsville, with 600 inmates. The Sisters of the Good
Shepherd in 1855 started a refuge for wayward girls and fallen
women. They care for 150 inmates and 75 children. In 1888 the
Rev. Daniel Walsh established the Working Boys Home, in which 80
boys and young men now find a comfortable home. In 1906 Bishop
Colton established the St. Charles's Home for Working Girls,
under the Sisters of Mercy. Bishop Quigley founded two mission
houses for poor children, the Angel guardian Mission and the St.
James's Mission. In June, 1848, Bishop Timon secured a community
of Sisters of Charity and placed them in the orphan asylum,
which now has 250 orphans, and a large number of young girls
employed in a technical school. There is a German orphan asylum
in Buffalo, incorporated in 1874, in which there are 370
orphans, under the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis.
The Polish orphan asylum at Doyle, under the care of the
Felician Sisters of St. Francis, has 186 inmates. The Sisters of
St. Joseph have the Orphan Asylum at Dunkirk with 88 orphans;
and the Sisters of Charity direct an infant asylum in Buffalo,
where 185 infant children can be accommodated, with 60 patients
in the maternity hospital. The Sisters of Charity hospital
accommodates 250 patients. Their emergency hospital treats 1,200
patients a year. The sisters of Mercy at the Mercy Hospital
accommodate about 40 patients. Estimated Catholic population
200,000.
THOMAS DONOHUE
Claude Buffier
Claude Buffier
A philosopher, and author, born in Poland, of French parents, 25
May, 1661; died in Paris, 17 May, 1737. He received his early
education at the Jesuit College in Rouen and entered the Society
of Jesus in 1679. After teaching literature in Paris, he
returned to Rouen to take a chair of theology. Mgr. Colbert,
archbishop of that city issued a pastoral recommending to his
clergy certain books of Gallican and Jansenistic tendencies.
Buffier attacked the pastoral in a pamphlet and having refused
to make a retractation journeyed, with the leave of his
superiors, to Rome to lay his case before the congregations.
Where he easily justified himself and returning to Paris was
connected from 1701 to 1731, with the "Journal de Trévoux." He
published works on history, asceticism, biography, education,
literature, and especially on philosophy. He was not, as is
often asserted, a disciple of Descartes, for he rejects
altogether methodic doubt and follows in general the
scholastics. The Encyclopedists, according to Tabaraud, inserted
in their publications, without due credit, entire pages from his
books, and Reid, the Scottish metaphysician, acknowledges his
great indebtedness to Buffier. His chief works are: a Life of
Count Louis de Sales, brother of the saint (Paris, 1708);
"Pratique de la mémoire artificielle" (Paris, 1701) often
reprinted; Grammaire française sur un plan nouveau (Paris,
1732), in many editions and translations; "Exposition des
preuves les plus sensibles de la Vraie Religion" (Paris, 1732);
and "Cours des sciences" (Paris, 1722).
WALTER DWIGHT
Louis Buglio
Louis Buglio
A celebrated missionary in China, mathematician, and theologian,
born at Mineo, Sicily, 26 January, 1606; died at Peking, 7
October, 1682. He entered the Society of Jesus, 29 January,
1622, and, after a brilliant career as a professor of the
humanities and rhetoric in the Roman College, asked to be sent
to the Chinese mission. With great zeal and success Father
Buglio preached the Gospel in the provinces of Su-Tchuen,
Fu-kien, and Kiang-si. He suffered severely for the faith in the
persecution which was carried on during the minority of the
Emperor Kang-hi. Taken prisoner by one of the victorious Tartar
chiefs, he was brought to Peking in 1648. Here, after a short
captivity, he was left free to exercise his ministry. Father
Buglio collaborated with Fathers Adam Schall, Verbiest, and
Magalhaens in reforming the Chinese calendar, and shared with
them the confidence and esteem of the emperor. At his death he
was given a state funeral.
Thoroughly acquainted with the Chinese language, Father Buglio
both spoke and wrote it fluently. A list of his works in
Chinese, more than eighty volumes, written for the most part to
explain and defend the Christian religion, is given in
Sommervogel. Besides Parts I and III of the "Summa" of St.
Thomas, he translated into Chinese the Roman Missal (Peking,
1670) the Breviary and the Ritual (ibid, 1674 and 1675). These
translations require a special notice, as they were part of a
project which, from the beginning of their apostolate in China,
the Jesuit missionaries were anxious to carry out. Their purpose
was not merely to form a native clergy, but, in order to
accomplish this more easily, to introduce a special liturgy in
the Chinese tongue, for the use at least of native priests. This
plan was approved by Paul V, who, 26 March 1615, granted to
regularly ordained Chinese priests the faculty of using their
own language in the liturgy and administrations of the
sacraments. This faculty was never used. Father Philip Couplet,
in 1681, tried to obtain a renewal of it from Rome, but was not
successful.
Acta SS., XIII, 123. Diss. xlviii; Sommervogel, Biblotheque de
la c. de J., II, 363; Cordier, Bibliotheca Sinica (Paris, 1881),
I, 514; Menologe S.J.: Assistance d'Italie
JOSEPH M. WOODS
Bernardo Buil
Bernado Buil
(Also Boil or Boyal.)
A Friar Minor. The fact that there were two religious of the
name of Bernardo Boil living in Spain at the same time has given
rise to much confusion and even to the opinion that they were
not two distinct persons, but that the same individual was at
one time a member of the Franciscan order, and later became a
Benedictine. It seems however, more probable to assert that
Bernardo Boil, the Franciscan, was a different person from
Bernardo Boyl, the Benedictine. It was to the former that
Alexander Vl addressed his Bull dated 25 June, 1493, appointing
him first vicar Apostolic of the New World. This appears to be
certain, first of all from the opening words "Dilecto filio
Bernardo Boil, fratri Ordinis Minorum", etc. of the Bull itself,
a part of which is reproduced in the first volume of THE
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. In the second place, the concluding words
of the Bull, where reference is made to the prohibition of
Boniface VIII concerning members of mendicant orders taking new
domiciles without permission from the Holy See, seem clearly to
indicate that the papal rescript was intended for Boil, the
Franciscan, and not for his namesake the Benedictine. It is a
matter of fact, however, that Bernardo Boyl, 0.S.B., became
first vicar Apostolic of the New World. This was due to the
intrigues of King Ferdinand of Spain who employed Boyl, the
Benedictine, to great advantage in several important diplomatic
negotiations and had sought his appointment as vicar Apostolic
in America. When the papal Bull arrived in Spain, ignoring the
king's choice, and nominating a Franciscan of the same name with
the trifling difference of the i and y, which letters were
pronounced alike, the only exception being in the order to which
the respective priests belonged, it became convenient to
conclude that a mistake had been made in Rome--which
interpretation Ferdinand found expedient to favour his own ends
and views. A false copy of the Bull was therefore made with the
necessary changes and delivered to Boyl, the Benedictine, while
appointmg Boil, the Franciscan. In time this latter document
disappeared so completely that no trace of it could be found in
the Spanish archieves. A copy, however, was carefully preserved
in the Vatican library and was brought to light by the
researches of the historian Roselly. Bernado Boil, O.F.M., never
knew of the high dignity which Alexander VI had conferred upon
him. It is certain he did not leave Spain; yet he was de jure
the true, legistimate, and first vicar Apostolic of the New
World . As regards Bernardo Boyl, O.S.B., it is a matter of
history that his labours were without fruit, and the only record
of his official action in America is the fulmination of
censures.
STEPHEN M. DONOVAN
Ecclesiastical Buildings
Ecclesiastical Buildings
This term comprehends all constructions erected for the
celebration of liturgical acts, whatever be the name given to
them:-- church, chapel, oratory, basilica, etc. The subject will
be treated under the following heads:
I. History
II. Division
III. Erection
IV. Repair and Maintenance
V. Consecration and Blessing
VI. Immunity
VII. Church Fabric
I. HISTORY
In the earliest days of the Christian religion, there were no
buildings specially consecrated to Eucharistic worship; the
assemblies for liturgical service were held in private houses
(Acts, ii, 46; Rom., xvi, 5; I Cor., xvi, 15; Col., iv, 15;
Philemon, 2). The assemblies which the first Christians held in
the Temple of Jerusalem, in the synagogues or even in hired
halls, were assemblies for instruction or for prayer (Acts, v,
12-13; xvii, 1-2; xix, 9). At the end of the second century and
even later, during the period of persecution, assemblies for
Christian worship were still held in private houses. During this
epoch, however, we begin to hear of the domus ecclesiae (the
house of the Church), an edifice used for all the services of
the Christian community, in which one apartment was specially
set apart for Divine worship. At an early date this apartment
took on a special importance. During the third century the other
parts of the building were detached from it and the domus
ecclesiae became the Domus Dei (the house of God) known also as
the Dominicum or the kyriakon oikon (Duchesne, Origines du culte
chrétien, 399-400, Paris, 1902; Wieland, Mensa und Confessio:
Studien uber den Altar der altchristlichen Liturgie, Munich,
1906, I, 27-35, 68-73). All such churches were situated in
towns, and the inhabitants of the rural districts came thither
on the Lord's Day, in order to assist at the Eucharistic
Sacrifice; in large cities, like Rome, Alexandria, and Carthage,
there are several churches, but they did not constitute separate
parishes (Duchesne, 400; Wieland, 73-76). They depended upon the
cathedral church, in which was established the see (sedes), or
the chair (cathedra) of the bishop. There were, however, since
the second century, outside the cities, mortuary churches
attached to the Christian cemeteries. Here were celebrated the
funeral rites, also the anniversary commemorations of the
departed, but not the ordinary offices of Divine worship.
Sanctuaries were also erected over the sepulchres of the
martyrs, and popular devotion brought thither a large concourse
of people, not only for the celebration of the anniversary, but
at other times as well. The necessity of providing accommodation
for these gatherings, as well as the desire to honour the saint,
led to the construction of buildings, sometimes large and richly
adorned. These churches multiplied when the people began to
accord to any relic whatever, to a piece of cloth stained with
his blood, to a phial of oil drawn from the lamp that burned
constantly before his sepulchre, etc., the veneration at first
given only to his burial place. These were the churches of
"relics". They prevailed finally to such an extent that today
every church must have relics in each of its altars (Duchesne,
402-403). It is almost universally recognized at the present day
that only on exceptional occasions did the catacombs serve for
ordinary worship even during the times of persecution. They were
used solely for funeral services and for the celebration of the
festivals of martyrs (Wieland, 81-100).
That churches existed in rural districts as early as the fourth
century is undeniable. Priests went thither periodically to
administer the sacraments. In the fifth century, however, on
account of the increase in the number of the faithful, it became
necessary to station resident priests in such districts. This
was the origin of parish churches, which were established by the
bishops in the most populous districts, the vici, and were known
as ecclesiae rusticanae, parochitanae, diocesanae, diocesis,
parochia, ecclesiae baptismates, because in these churches only
could the Sacrament of Baptism be administered; they were also
termed tituli majores to distinguish them from the private
churches, or tituli minores (Imbart de la Tour, Les paroisses
rurales du IVe au XIIe siècle, Paris, 1900). In addition to
these churches of the vici, the owners of the villae or great
estates founded churches for their own use and for that of the
persons connected with their establishments. Such churches could
not be used for Divine worship without the consent of the local
bishop, who was wont to exact from the proprietor a renunciation
of all rights of possession. The ecclesiastical authority,
however, was not long able to resist the proprietors, who from
the seventh and eighth centuries retained the proprietary right
over the churches they had built. These were called oratoria,
basilicae, martyria, or tituli minores, and were in no respect
parish churches, because in them baptism could not be
administered; moreover, on certain solemn days, the faithful
were obliged to assist at Mass in the parish church. Neither did
these churches receive any tithes. From the Carlovingian period,
however, such private churches gradually became parish-churches.
Some authors contend that from that epoch all churches became
the private property of the laity, or of convents, or bishops.
The ecclesiastical reforms of the eleventh and twelfth centuries
brought this condition of things to all end. The Second Lateran
Council (1139) commanded all laymen, under pain of
excommunication, to resign to the bishops the churches in their
possession. (Mansi, "Coll. Conc." XXI, 529-532; Stutz,
"Geschichte des kirchl. Benefizialwesens", Berlin, 1895, I;
Hinschius, "System des kath. Kirchenrechts", Berlin, 1878, II,
262-269, 277- 281; Imbart de la Tour, op. cit.) Even within the
parishes, for the benefit of the faithful, there were
established at various times, chapels which did not enjoy the
prerogatives of parish churches, and were more or less dependent
upon the latter (Von Scherer, Handbuch des Kirehenrechtes, Graz,
1898, II, 627). In addition to churches specially intended for
the use of the faithful, others known as oratories were erected
in the monasteries; they acquired a greater importance when the
majority of the monks were ordained priests, still more when the
exclusive privileges of the parish churches suffered diminution.
Such oratories were also common in beneficent and charitable
institutions. The medieval corporations (guilds) which were also
religious confraternities, had sometimes their own special
chapels (Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques de la
France, Paris, 1903, III,143-176).
II. DIVISION
Ecclesiastical buildings are usually divided into four classes:
+ churches properly so called,
+ public oratories,
+ private oratories, and
+ semi-public oratories.
This division was confirmed by the Congregation of Rites, 23
January, 1899 (Decreta authent. Congreg sacr. Rit. no. 4007,
Rome, 1900). Churches are edifices set apart in perpetuity for
the public exercise of Divine worship; such are basilicas,
primatial, metropolitan, cathedral, collegiate and parish
churches, and lastly the conventual churches of regulars,
properly so called. Public oratories are buildings of less
importance, definitely given over to Divine worship, and
accessible to the public, whether the entrance itself be upon
the public road or upon a passage-way leading to the latter. A
private oratory is one established in favour of a particular
family or even of a single individual. Finally, a semi-public
oratory is established for the benefit of a number of people;
such is the chapel of a seminary, a college, a congregation of
simple vows, a hospital, a prison, etc. With these may be
classed the chapels of cardinals and of bishops.
III. ERECTION
Basilicas, cathedrals, collegiate churches, and private
oratories, may be erected only with the consent of the Holy See;
other churches or oratories with the consent of the bishop.
Nevertheless the authorization given by a bishop to a religious
order of solemn vows to establish a monastery in his diocese
involves, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the
right to construct a monastic church. On the other hand all
provincial superiors of religious orders have the power to open
semi-public oratories for the use of their religious, and that
without the authorization of the bishop (Bull of Gregory XIII,
"Decet Romanum", 3 May, 1575, granted to the Society of Jesus
and applicable likewise to all religious orders in virtue of the
communication of privileges. Cf. Vermeersch, De religiosis
institutis et personis, Bruges, 1902, I, 316). For the erection
of a private oratory, even by religious, the authorization of
the pope is necessary (C.S.R.,10 November, 1906; "Canoniste
Contemporain", 1907, XXX, 109, 110). Congregations of simple
vows may have but one semi-public or public oratory, with the
authorization of the bishop. If they wish to erect several for
the convenience of priests or of the infirm, it is necessary to
obtain the consent of the Holy see (C.S.R. 8 March, 1879,
Decreta, no. 3484).
The erection of every church on the other hand must be justified
by its necessity, or by its use; it must not in any way
prejudice the rights of churches already established (c. iii,
"De ecclesiis aedificandis vel reparandis", X, III, xlviii, c.
i, ii, iv, "De novi operis nuntiatione", X, V, xxxii; Friedberg,
"Corpus juris canonici", Leipzig, 1881, II, 652, 843). The
church should also be sufficiently endowed (c. viii, "De
consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris", X, III, xl; Friedberg, II,
634). Practically it is sufficient that the church have at its
disposal, e.g. through the gifts of the faithful, the revenues
necessary for the maintenance of the building, the celebration
of Divine service, and the support of its ministers (Bargilliat,
Praelect. jur. can., Paris, 1900, II, 331). In certain countries
the consent of the civil power is also needed. The building of a
church cannot be begun before the bishop or his delegate has
approved of the site, placed a cross there, and blessed the
first stone (Pontificate Romanum, Pars II, De benedict. et
imposit. prim. lapid. pro eccl. aedif.). The bishop can also
reserve to himself the approval of the plans and conditions
according to which the church is to be constructed (Wernz, Jus
Decretal., Rome, 1901, III, 432, 433. To avoid useless
expenditure and to prevent the parish priest from improvidently
contracting debts, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
enacted as a preliminary condition for the construction of a
church, the consent of the bishop in writing (Acta et decreta
Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis, III, no. 279). The bishop has
power to apply to the construction of his cathedral a part of
the revenues, which in certain countries are annually assigned
to him from the revenues of the different churches; the
cathedral church being the ecclesia matrix, or mother-church of
all those of the diocese, its construction is a work which
interests the whole diocese (the Eighth Provincial, the Second
Plenary, Councils of Baltimore, 1855 and 1866, and the Second
Provincial Council of Australia, 1869; "Collectio Lacensis",
Freiburg, 1875, III, 162, 429, 1078; also 200-202, 242, 1085).
The bishop can even levy a subsidium charitativum for this
purpose, i.e a moderate tax upon the revenues of the churches
and on those priests who enjoy ecclesiastical benefices. In
default of other resources the usual means is to collect money
for this object, or to ask the priests of the diocese for
voluntary contributions.
IV. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
Originally the repairs of the churches were incumbent upon the
bishops, as administrators of all ecclesiastical goods. When,
according to ancient custom, these goods were divided into four
parts, one part was assigined to the Fabrica (see below) i.e. to
the church building and its maintenance. Later, each church had
its own patrimony, and one part of its goods was assigned to its
maintenance. This charge was also incumbent upon the holders of
the goods and revenues of the church. The Decretals sanctioned
this obligation, at the same time they urged the people to help
defray the expenses (c. i. iv, "De ecclesii aedificandis", X,
II, xlviii; Friedberg, II. 652, 653). Finally the Council of
Trent (Sess. XXI, De ref. c. vii) located more exactly the
obligation to repair the parish churches (Permander, Die
kirchliche Baulast, Munich, 1890, 1-18). By present
ecclesiastical legislation the repairs of the church belong
especially to the fabric, which must use the funds appropriated
for that special purpose and if need be, its superfluous
revenues (c. vi, "De ecclesiis aedificandis"; Friedberg, II,
654; Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, De ref. c. vii). These
resources failing, the persons who possess the right of
patronage over the church intervene if they wish to preserve
their privileges (Canones et decreta conc. Trid. ed. Schulte and
Richter, Leipzig, 1853, 121, no. 4). This obligation rests also
on all persons who enjoy part of the revenues of the church the
tithe-owners, whether laymen or ecclesiastics, seculars or
regulars, the parish priest, and all those who enjoy a benefice
from the church. The parishioners themselves are bound to
provide for the maintenance of the church, each according to his
means. In practice collections should be made for this object.
These same principles apply to cathedral churches; in case the
revenues of the church are insufficient, the bishop, the
chapter, the clergy of the cathedral, and the inhabitants of the
diocese ought to contribute for its support (Sägmüller, Lehrbuch
des kathol. Kirchenrechts, Freiburg, 1900-04, 798, 799). For the
support of his cathedral, as for its erection, the bishop can
ask from his clergy a special aid or subsidium charitativum.
Wherever these rules have been abrogated by other customs, the
latter should be followed. In case of fire, the insurance might
cover the damage. Hence special laws may make obligatory the
insurance of churches (Acta et Decreta Concilii Baltimorensis
III, no. 283). Chapels or churches belonging to congregations of
regulars or to particular establishments, ought to be maintained
at the expense of these establishments. It sometimes happens
that the civil power contributes to the support of churches, as
well as to their construction. In reality such co-operation is
often only a restitution of ecclesiastical property or revenues
misappropriated by the civil government.
V. CONSECRATION AND BLESSING
Churches and oratories cannot be used for liturgical functions,
without having first been consecrated or at least blessed.
Cathedral and parish churches ought to be consecrated. However,
in case of necessity they may be provisionally blessed (Rit.
Rom., tit. viii, c. xxvii). Public oratories and other churches
may be consecrated, though this is not necessary. They ought,
however, to receive a solemn benediction. Private oratories, on
the other hand, cannot receive such benediction; it is fitting,
however, that the benedictio loci be given to them (op. cit. c.
vi.) Some hold that semi-public oratories which in exterior
appearance resemble churches or chapels, and which are
definitely destined for Divine worship, may be solemnly
consecrated (C.S.R., 7 August, 1875, 5 June, 1899; Decreta, nos.
3364, 4025). The custom of dedicating churches to the worship of
God by a solemn ceremony is very ancient. In his Ecclesiastical
History (X, iii, iv) Eusebius describes the dedication, in 314,
of the church erected by Constantine at Tyre, at which time,
however, there was no special rite for that purpose. At Rome in
the sixth century, the dedication consisted in the public
celebration of a solemn Mass, and if it was a church which was
to contain relics, these latter were brought to the church in
solemn procession. It seems that at the same period, there
existed a special rite of consecration in Gaul. In their brief
outlines, the present ceremonies are derived from a combination
of the rites used in France and in Rome, a combination which had
already been made before the beginning of the eighth century
(Duchesne, op. cit., 403-418). The consecration or dedication is
performed according to the rite prescribed in the "Pontificale
Romanum" (De ecclesiae dedicatione seu consecratione) by the
bishop, or by a priest delegated for that office by the Holy
See. The essential rite of this dedication consisting in the
anointing of the twelve crosses upon the walls with holy chrism,
and the recitation of the words Sanctificetur, etc. (Wernz, III,
437). It is not permitted to consecrate a church without at the
same time consecrating the high altar, or, if this has already
been consecrating another fixed altar. If all the altars have
been consecrated, it will be necessary to ask the authorization
of the Holy See. Without the consecration, however, of an altar,
the consecration of the church will not be invalid (C.S.R., 12
August, 1854; 3 March, 1866, 19 May 1896, Decreta, nos. 3025,
3142, 3907). When the public authorities forbid the performance
of the prescribed ceremonies outside the church, a pontifical
indult must be obtained, except in case of necessity; such
ceremonies must then be performed in the sacristy or some other
dependency of the church (C.S.R., 22 February, 1888; Decreta,
no. 3687). A church built of wood cannot be consecrated (C. S.
R., 11 April, 1902; "Canoniste contemporain", 1902, XXV, 495).
The vigil of the day of consecration is a fast-day of obligation
for the bishop and for those who have asked for the consecration
of the church (C.S.R., 29 July, 1780, 12 September, 1840;
Decreta nos. 2519, 2821; Reply of the Holy Office, 14 December,
1898; "Acta Sanctae Sedis", 1898-99, XXXI, 533). The feast of
the dedication must be celebrated every year on the anniversary
day of the consecration. The Bishop may, if he chooses, fix
another day; but this he should on the very day on which he
consecrates the church (C.S.R. 19 September, 1665, 23 May, 1834;
Decreta, nos 1321, 2719). While this feast should be celebrated
by all the clergy connected with the consecrated church, the
anniversary of the dedication of the cathedral ought to be
celebrated by all the secular clergy of the diocese, and by all
the regulars all the episcopal city (C.S.R., 12 September 1884,
9 July, 1895; Decreta, nos. 3622, 3863). If the exact date of
the anniversary is unknown, the most probable date should be
chosen until such time as the date can be determined with
certainty (C.S.R. 14 June, 1608, 13 March, 1649; Decreta, nos.
261, 920). The bishop may fix a day if the right one be
completely unknown (C.S.R., 18 August, 1629; 3 March, 1674; 27
November, 1706; 12 March, 1735; Decreta, nos. 511, 1498, 2174,
2313). The Holy See sometimes permits the celebration of the
anniversary of the dedication of the cathedral church and of all
the churches of the diocese on the same day. All the clergy of
the diocese are then bound to celebrate this festival (C.S.R.,
29 November, 1878; Decreta, no. 3469).
The solemn benediction is a rite inferior to consecration. It is
performed by a priest delegated by the bishop for that purpose
(Rit. Rom. tit. viii, c. xxvii). It consists in the sprinkling
of the upper and lower parts of the walls of the church with
holy water, and in the prayers which accompany this action
(Wernz, III, 437). A new consecration or benediction of a church
or oratory ought to be made in the case of execration or
desecration, that is to say, when the building has lost its
consecration or benediction. This is the case when
eccleciastical buildings have been definitely put to profane
uses (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, De ref. c. vii.); similarly,
in accordance with modern discipline, if almost the entire
church or a large portion of the walls have been destroyed or
renewed (C.S.R., 14 September, 1875; Decreta, no. 3372).
Successive alterations and repairs, however, even though
considerable, as also the renewal of the roof, are not to be
regarded as execration (C.S.R., 31 August, 1872, Decreta, no.
3269). The consecration affects the entire building, but
especially the walls; the removal, therefore, of the anointed
crosses or even of the interior plastering (intonaco) of the
walls, does not necessitate a new consecration (C.S.R., 13 July,
1883; 19 May, 1896; Decreta, nos. 3584, 3907). The same
principles are applicable to churches that have been solemnly
blessed this benediction affects the walls rather than the
pavement of the church. If, however, the belief was that the
benediction attached itself to the pavement the mere destruction
of the walls would not have the effect of producing the
execration of the church (Wernz, III, 441 442).
Widely different from desecration is the pollutio of a church.
This is a defilement of the church which prevents the
celebration of the Divine offices until the church has been
reconciled or purified. The priest is bound to interrupt the
celebration of Mass, if the church in which he is celebrating is
polluted before he has commenced the Canon (Missale Romanum, De
defectibus in celebratione missarum occurrentibus, X). A church
is polluted by every kind of homicide even by a case of capital
punishment, or by voluntary suicide committed in the church, but
the wound must have been inflicted within the church and,
according to some authors, death must have taken place there. A
church is likewise polluted when a considerable quantity of
blood has been wilfully and culpably spilled within it, or when
the effusio seminis humani has taken place, wilfully and in a
seriously culpable manner (c. iv, x, De consecratione ecclesiae,
X, III xi; Fridberg, II, 634- 635). In like manner also a church
is polluted by the burial within it of an infidel, or of a
person who has been excommunicated (excommunicatus vitandus) (c.
vii, loc. cit.; Bargilliat, II, 343-344), not, however, by the
burial of catechumens, and perhaps not by that of unbaptized
infants born of baptized parents (C.S.R., 23 April, 1875;
Decreta, no 3344).
It is important to remark that the reconciliation must be
performed only when the pollution has been public. A church that
has been solemnly blessed can be reconciled by a priest,
according to the ceremonies prescribed in the "Rituale Romanum"
(tit. viii, c. xxviii). Many authors, however, affirm that the
priest should be delegated by the bishop and the Congregation of
Rites has given a decision to the same effect (8 July, 1904,
Canoniste Contemporain, 1904, XXIV, 683). A church that has been
consecrated can be reconciled only by the bishop, or by a priest
delegated by the Holy See, and with water blessed by the bishop.
This privilege as has been granted to exempt religious (Bull of
Leo X, "Religionis", 3 February, 1514). The Propaganda grants to
bishops in missionary countries the power to delegate to priests
the right to reconcile a consecrated church, but the water
employed must be blessed by the bishop or, in case of necessity,
by a priest (Bargilliat, II, 345, Putzer-Konings, "Commentarium
in facultates apostolicas", New York, 1898, 215-217). Sometimes
the reconciliation is performed ad cautelam as for instance when
a church has been occupied by soldiers for two days (C.S.R., 27
February, 1847; Decreta, no. 2908). This legislation does not
refer to oratories which have received only the benedictio loci.
VI. IMMUNITY
Churches enjoy by ecclesiastical law the same immunity from
secular burdens and as all ecclesiastical property. The state
may not burden them with taxes (Council of Trent, Sess XXV, De
ref. c. xx; Syllabus nos. 30, 32). In many states the law
recognize this privilege for parish and cathedral churches. Such
immunity is very ancient and dates from the Christian emperors
of the fourth century (O. Grashof, in Archiv f. kath
Kirchenrecht, 1876, XXXV, 3 sqq., 193 sqq.) On the other hand,
every irreverence within a church or public oratory is a
sacrilege, such as the theft of an article even though it does
not belong to the church or an article that has been consecrated
(Decretum Gratiani P. II, c xvii, q. 4, c. xxi; Friedberg, I,
820). Such also are the sins of the flesh (Lehmkuhl, Theologia
moralis, Freiburg, 1898, I, 238, 239). The reverence due to the
holy place forbids all profane actions. Therefore, the following
actions are forbidden in a church: trials not falling within
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, trading; games, plays and secular
songs; banquets; the making of a dwelling either above or below
the church; etc. In this category may be included the
introduction of draperies and banners which have not been
blessed by the Church (Wernz, III, 446). It belongs to the
office of the bishop to specify what actions are forbidden in
the churches, and to settle the controversies which may arise.
The bishop is also empowered to provide for the maintenance of
order and may also commit this care to a delegate, for instance,
to the parish priest. In connection with this see RIGHT OF
ASYLUM.
VII. THE CHURCH FABRIC
By the term Fabrica ecclesiae are to be understood not only the
goods belonging to the Church but also the administrators of
these goods. Ever since the thirteenth century the laity have
been allowed to participate in this administration, and the
Council of Trent did not reprove their intervention (Sess. XXII,
De ref. ch. ix). The civil power also intervenes in order to
regulate the administration of the property of cathedral and
parish churches. The following are examples of how the fabrics
are organized in certain countries.
In France, Napoleon recognized fabrics of the churches, and
entrusted the administration of the property of parish churches
to five or nine elected members, to the parish priest, and
mayor. These formed the conseil de fabrique. The elective
members holding office for six years and eligible for
re-election, were chosen by the council itself. These vestrymen
had in hand the administration of the temporal property of the
church elected from amongst their number a bureau des
Marguilliers composed of three members and the parish priest,
charged with the ordinary administration and execution of the
decisions of the council. The bishop had the right of control
over the management of the vestrymen. His approbation as well as
that of the State was required for their most important
undertakings. The communal authority could control the budgets
and the accounts when the fabric asked the former for the
necessary funds to defray the expenses of Divine worship, and
for the maintenance of ecclesiastical buildings.
The French Municipal Law of 5 May, 1884, ordered that the
budgets and accounts should be submitted to the communal
council, and freed the commune from the obligation of making up
a deficit in the resources of the fabric for ordinary expenses
of divine worship. The bishop had the power to organize the
fabric of the cathedral church himself, but the administration
of its goods was still under the control of the Government (De
Champeaux, "Recueil général de droit civil eccelésiastique
francais", Paris, 1860; Bargilliat, II, 110-159). This
organization, modified, however, by the Constitution of 1831 and
by the law of 4 March, 1874, still continues in force in Belgium
(De Corswarem, Des Fabriques d'églises, Hasselt, 1904). The Law
of 11 December 1905, suppressed the fabrics in France and
replaced them by associations cultuelles which Pius X forbade by
his Encyclical, "Gravissimo officii" (10 August, 1906; Canoniste
contemporain, 1906, XXIX, 572). This law by handing over to
seven, fifteen, or twenty-five persons the administration of
church property, without making any mention whatever of
ecclesiastical control, increases the State's power of
interference in the administration of these associations and
give it full power to suppress them (Jenouvrier, Expose de la
situation légale de l'Eglise de France, d'apres la loi du 11
décembre, 1905, Paris, 1906).
In Prussia the fabrics of the churches were organized by the law
of 20 June, 1875, enacted during the Kulturkampf. In each parish
(Kirchegemeinde) ecclesiastical goods are administered by a body
of churchwardens termed Kirchenvorstand under the control of a
parish board or Gemeindevertretung. This assembly is not,
however, everywhere obligatory. The members of these assemblies
are elected by all the male parishioners, who are of age and
have resided for at least one year in the parish, pay the
ecclesiastical tax, and have their own homes, conduct a business
concern, or fill a public office. All electors over thirty years
of age are eligible for office with the exception of
ecclesiastics and the servants or employees of the church. No
man can hold office in both these assemblies. The
Kirchenvorstand is composed of members varying in number from
four to ten, according to the total number of the population.
Since the law of 21 May, l886 the parish priest (Pfarrer) is the
president ex officio of this assembly, except in those places in
which, before the law of 1875, the presidency was given to a
layman. This assembly administers the temporal concerns of the
church. The Gemeindevertretung includes three times as many
members as the Kirchenvorstand. It is necessary that they should
give their consent to the most important acts of the
administration of the Kirchenvorstand: the alienations, the
acquisitions, the loans, the most important works, taxes
(Kirchensteuer), etc, and approve the budgets and accounts. The
president of the Kirchenvorsiand, or his delegate, assists as a
consultor at their meetings. All mandates remain in force for
six years. The State and the ecclesiastical authority exercise
supreme control over the most important actions of these fabrics
(Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, 1875 XXXIV, I67, 1876,
XXXV, 161, 1886, LVI, 196, 1887, LVII, 153.
In the French-speaking portion of the Dominion of Canada
(Province of Quebec) fabrics also exist. Their organization
still corresponds, in its main outlines, to the ancient
organization of the parishes in France before the Revolution of
1789, as described by Jousse in his "Traité du gouvernement
spirituel et temporel des paroisses" (Paris, 1769). There is,
first of all, the Parochial Assembly (Vestry) comprising all the
Francs-tenanciers of the parish; no alienation, no loan, can be
concluded without their intervention. In case a subscription is
necessary they raise it by assessment. The churchwardens
actually in office, called marguilliers du Banc, and the former
churchwardens, must pay the ordinary expenses. This is the
bureau ordinaire of the ancient French law. Finally, ordinary
matters of administration are attended to by a commission
composed of three members chosen for three years by the old and
the newly elected churchwardens. Each one of the three
churchwardens is in charge for a year i.e., he performs the
functions of treasurer and must render an account to the
assembly. The parish priest is president of the fabric and
represents the bishop. All the important accounts must be
approved of by the latter (Beaudry, "Code des curés,
marguilliers, et paroissiens", Montreal, 1870, Gignac,
"Compendium juris canonici ad usum cleri Canadensis," Quebec,
1901; Migneault, "Droit paroissial", Montreal (1891)
For other countries, see Sägmüller, "Lehrbuch des katholischen
Kirchenrechts" (782, 795). In English speaking countries fabrics
properly so called do not exist. In England ecclesiastical
property is given in trust to reliable men. The bishops
themselves regulate the administration of these goods. In
Ireland the trustees are the bishop, the vicar-general, the
parish priest and sometimes other reliable persons (First and
Second Synod of Westminster, XIV, 4, and VIII,1-21; Provincial
Synod of Maynooth, 1875, tit. xxix, nos. 270-277; Collectio
Lacensis, III, 926, 980)). In the United States property is
often given in trust to the bishop, and in cases where the
parishes are civilly incorporated, sometimes the bishop forms
the corporation sole; sometimes the administration of the
property belongs to a board of trustees composed of the bishop,
his vicar-general, the pastor of the church, and two lay
trustees (Taunton, The Law of the Church, London, 1906,
310-317). In accordance with the Third Council of Baltimore
(nos. 284-287) the bishop of each diocese judges whether or not
it is wise to establish councilmen or a board of trustees; he
fixes their number and the mode of their election. They are
subject to the authority of the parish priest and the bishop.
The relations of the State to church property, especially in
English-speaking countries, will be treated in the articles:
ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY; INCORPORATION; TRUSTEE SYSTEM.
A. VAN HOVE
Bukarest
Bukarest
(Bucharest; Bucarestiensis; Rumanian, Bucharesci "City of
enjoyment")
Comprises the Kingdom of Rumania, of which Bukarest is the
capital, excluding Moldavia, and contains, according to the
archdiocesan year-book for 1907, about 56,000 Catholics of the
Latin Rite, 4,000 to 5,000 Uniat Rumanians, chiefly immigrants
from Transylvania, Banat, and Bukowina, and a few hundred Uniat
Armenians. In the city of Bukarest which in 1905 had 285,445
inhabitants there are about 202,000 Orthodox Greeks and 43,000
Jews. The city is situated in a swampy plain on both sides of
the Dimbobitza which is here crossed by about a dozen bridges.
It is noted for many stately edifices, and the semi-Oriental
appearance of its older quarters is heightened by the numerous
gardens and the bright domes of its Greek churches. The Catholic
cathedral chapter consists at present of 4 canons, 1 honorary
canon, and 4 honorary canons outside the diocese. There are in
the archdiocese 40 priests (in addition to the archbishop),
including 2 Passionists, 1 Benedictine, and 1 Dominican; 24
parishes, one of the Greek-Rumanian Rite; 45 churches including
23 parish churches. The training of the clergy is provided for
in the archiepiscopal seminary at Bukarest, which has four
professors and nineteen seminarists; six seminarists are being
trained outside the diocese. The opposition of the Rumanian
Government has hitherto rendered the establishment of a Catholic
college impossible. Catholic primary schools exist in all
parishes. In the city of Bukarest are twenty-six Brothers of the
Christian Schools who conduct three schools, with an attendance
of 1,028. The English Ladies, numbering about 252, have two
houses in Bukarest, one each in Braïla, Craiova, and Turnu
Severin, and conduct five boarding schools with 705 pupils,
eight primary schools for girls with an attendance of 1,493, and
one orphanage with 20 children. The Dames de Sion have one
foundation in Bukarest, with thirty-seven sisters and conduct a
boarding school with an attendance of 133; the Sisters of Mercy
one foundation with four sisters. The Hungarians have
established nine Catholic schools (two in Bukarest), attended by
about 945 children. In addition to the above-mentioned orders,
the Passionists have one house with four members. The most
important churches are: the cathedral, dedicated to St. Joseph,
a three-naved Gothic edifice, the largest Catholic church in the
country, which was completed in 1884; and the Baratsia, an early
church of the Franciscans, destroyed by fire in 1848 and since
rebuilt.
HISTORY
For the history of the Catholic Church in the territory now
comprised within the Archdiocese of Bukarest see RUMANIA. The
present archdiocese was erected by Pope Leo XIII, 27 April,
1883. Bukarest, however, had previously been the residence of
Catholic bishops, viz., the Bishops of Nicopolis, Bulgaria, who
were also Administrators Apostolic of Wallachia, and had resided
at Rustchuk. Bishop Paulus Davanlia (1777-1804) left Rustchuk
and lived at the Franciscan monastery at Bukarest (1792-93),
where he also died. His successor, Franciscus Ferreri
transferred his residence to Cioplea, a village near Bukarest
founded in 1812 by Bulgarian refugees, but he was prevented from
entering Bukarest by the opposition of the Greek orthodox
bishop. Only in 1847 was Bishop Josephus Molajoni able to
establish his residence in Bukarest. His successor, Angelus
Parsi, restored the episcopal palace, which had been destroyed
by fire in 1847, and in 1852 brought to Bukarest the English
Ladies, and in 1861 the Brothers of the Christian Schools. In
1863 Bishop Parsi was succeeded by Josephus Pluym, since 1869
Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople, who in turn was followed by
Ignatius Paoli. After the establishment of Rumania as a kingdom,
a movement was set on foot by the Government to release the
Catholic subjects from dependence on a foreign bishop, and
negotiations were begun with Rome. In 1883 Pope Leo XIII erected
two dioceses in Rumania immediately subject to the Holy See, the
Archdiocese of Bukarest and the Diocese of Jassy. The first
archbishop was Ignatius Paoli, succeeded in turn by Paulus
Josephus Palma (1885-92); Otto Zardetti (1894-95), who was the
second Bishop of St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A. (1889-94), when he
was transferred to Bukarest. He resigned this last office in
1895 and died in Rome, on 9 May, 1902; Xaverius Hornstein
(1896-1905), who built a new episcopal residence and for the
second time called the Brothers of the Christian Schools to
Bukarest; Raymundus Netzhammer, O.S.B., born at Erzingen, Baden,
19 January, 1862, professed in the Benedictine monastery at
Einsiedeln, 1881, and consecrated Archbishop of Bukarest 16
September, 1905.
JOSEPH LINS
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
A European kingdom in the northeastern part of the Balkan
Peninsula, bounded by the Black Sea, the Rhodope Mountains,
Servia, and the Danube; it embraces an area of 37,200 sq. m. The
population according to the census of 1900 numbers 3,744,283,
divided according to religion into 3,019,296 Greek Orthodox,
28,579 Catholics of the Latin Rite and Uniat Greeks, 4524
Protestants, 13,809 Gregorian Armenians, 33,663 Jews, 643,300
Mohammedans, and 1112 of other creeds; according to nationality
into 2,887,860 Bulgarians, 539,656 Turks, 89,549 Gypsies, 75,223
Rumanians, 70,887 Greeks, 32,753 Jews, 18,856 Tatars, 13,926
Armenians, and 15,741 of other nationalities. The number of
inhabitants in 1905 was 4,028,239.
HISTORY
At the beginning of the Christian Era, what is now Bulgaria
constituted the Roman provinces of Moesia and Thrace, a
territory in which Christianity was preached at a very early
period, as proved by the Council of Sardica in 343. During the
migratory period Slavic races pushed forward into this region.
Some time after the middle of the seventh century, the Bulgars,
a people of Hunnic and Finnic stock, who had been driven from
their habitations on the Volga as far as the Lower Danube, began
to make incursions into Moesia and Thrace. Completing their
conquest of the country in a war with the Byzantine Empire, they
founded an independent kingdom about 680. The Bulgars gradually
became amalgamated with the former inhabitants, adopting the
nationality and language of the latter, but giving their own
name to the ethnographic mixture. The new State often came into
conflict with the neighbouring Byzantine Empire, to which,
however, in 718, it lent its support against the Arabs. Prince
Boris, or Bogoris (844-845 or 852-888), d. 907), accepted
Christianity for political reasons and was baptized in 864 or
the beginning of 865; he first negotiated with Pope Nicholas I
for the creation of a Bulgarian hierarchy, but in the end joined
the Byzantine Church. During the reign of his younger son Symeon
(893-927) the ancient Bulgarian State reached the zenith of its
prosperity; its territories extended from the Danube to the
Rhodope Mountains and from the Black Sea to the Ionian Sea. In
917 Symeon assumed the title of Tsar, and in 924 compelled
Byzantium to recognize the Bulgarian Church as an autocephalous
patriarchate, with its seat at Ochrida or Achrida. Under his son
Peter (927-969) the kingdom began to decline; during the reign
of Shishman I the western part proclaimed its independence; two
years after Peter's death the eastern section was pledged to the
Eastern Empire. The western part, not able to preserve its
autonomy, went to pieces in 1018 under the repeated attacks of
the Emperor Basil II, surnamed Bulgaroktonos (the slayer of the
Bulgarians). Though Basil left the Bulgarian Church its
autonomy, the Metropolitans of Achrida were no longer styled
Patriarchs, but Archbishops, and after 1025 were chosen from the
Greek clergy, instead of the Bulgarian.
After several futile uprisings against the oppressive Byzantine
rule, a fresh Bulgarian insurrection took place about 1185. Two
brothers, Peter and Ivan Asen, assumed the leadership, threw off
the Byzantine yoke and re-established Symeon's empire. On their
death (1197) their youngest brother Kaloyan, or Ivanitza, ruled
alone until 1207; he entered into negotiations with the Holy
See, promised to recognize the spiritual supremacy of the pope,
and in November, 1204, was crowned with the royal diadem by
Cardinal Leo, legate of Pope Innocent III. At the same time
Archbishop Basil of Tirnovo was consecrated Primate of Bulgaria.
This new Bulgarian Church embraced eight dioceses, Tirnovo being
the primatial see, but the union with Rome was not of long
duration. The new empire soon came into conflict with the
recently founded Latin Empire (1204) of Constantinople; the
Greeks fanned the dissensions in order to gain the Bulgarians
over to their side. King Ivan Asen II (1218-41) formed an
alliance with Emperor Vatatzes against the Latin Empire (1234),
and again joined the Greek Church, which thereupon solemnly
recognized the autonomy of the Church of Tirnovo (1235). Since
that time, with the exception of brief intervals, the Bulgarian
Church has persisted in schism. In 1236 Pope Gregory IX
pronounced sentence of excommunication on Asen II, and in 1238
had a Crusade preached against Bulgaria. The history of the
following period shows a succession of struggles with the
Greeks, the Servians, and the Hungarians, of internal wars for
the possession of the throne, and of religious disturbances, as,
for instance, those consequent on the spread of the Bogomili and
the Hesychasts, all of which weakened the State.
During the fourteenth century, the Turks, flushed with victory,
invaded the Balkan Peninsula, and under Amurath I overthrew the
Servian kingdom in the battle of Kossovo (Field of Blackbirds,
1389), captured Tirnovo, and imprisoned Ivan III Shishman, the
last Bulgarian Tsar, thus destroying the Bulgarian hegemony. The
Church shared the fate of the State, and the last Bulgarian
patriarch, Euthymius (1375-93), was driven into exile. Only the
Patriarchate of Achrida continued as a Graeco-Bulgarian
metropolitan see, with Greek or helenized occupants, until it
was suppressed by the Porte in 1767 in consequence of the
intrigues of the oecumenical patriarchs. The Greek language
prevailed everywhere in schools and churches, and the remains of
ancient Bulgarian literature were destroyed to a large extent by
the Greeks. For almost five centuries the Bulgarian people
groaned under the political yoke of the Turks and the
ecclesiastical domination of the Greeks, yet continuous
persecution did not avail to obliterate the memory of the
nation's former greatness. The nineteenth century was destined
to bring liberty to the Bulgarians, as well as to other
Christian peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. The self-sacrificing
generosity of wealthy Bulgarians made it possible to establish
Bulgarian schools (the first at Gabrovo, 1835) and printing
presses (at Saloniki, 1839, Smyrna, 1840, Constantinope., 1843),
by which the national culture and patriotic sentiment were
elevated. The reawakened national feeling first manifested
itself in the ecclesiastical order.
In 1860 a representative body of the Bulgarian nation requested
the Greek patriarch at Constantinople to recognize their
national church, to accord them freedom in the selection of
their bishops, and to appoint Bulgarian, rather than Greek
prelates to Bulgarian sees. The Patriarch of Constantinople
refused these concessions. This act inflamed the national
feeling and was followed by the expulsion of the Greek bishops
and finally insurrections against Turkish authority. To ensure
its supremacy, the Porte sought to mediate between the parties,
but fresh negotiations were productive of no further result, and
the Sultan by a firman of 11 March, 1870, granted the Bulgarians
an exarchate of their own, independent of the Greek
patriarchate. In 1872, the first Bulgarian exarch was chosen by
an assembly of Bulgarian bishops and laymen. In a council at
which only twenty-nine orthodox bishops assisted the oecumenical
patriarch solemnly excommunicated the Bulgarian Church and
declared it schismatical.
National autonomy followed close upon ecclesical independence.
On May, 1876, the Turkish Government perpetrated unspeakable
atrocities in the suppression of a Bulgarian insurrection. These
horrors might never have touched the conscience of the civilized
world had it not been for the courage and enterprise of
Januarius Aloysius MacGahan, an American Catholic (b. in Perry
County, Ohio, 12 June, 1844, d. at Constantinople, 9 June,
1878). As correspondent of the London "Daily News ", and
accompanied by Eugene Schuyler, Commissioner of the United
States Government, MacGahan was the only journalist to visit the
devastated districts; he obtained the evidence of eyewitnesses
and, supplementing this with his own observation, published a
mass of facts which enabled Mr. Gladstone to arouse among the
English-speaking peoples a lively sympathy for the Bulgarian
Christians. A conference of the European powers demanded of
Turkey the erection of an autonomous Bulgarian province. The
Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, however, and the Peace of San
Stefano created an autonomous Bulgarian principality, tributary
to the Porte. The Berlin Congress of 1878 abrogated some of the
provisions of the Peace of San Stefano and divided Greater
Bulgaria into an autonomous Bulgarian principality and a
province of Eastern Rumelia under a Christian governor-general,
to be appointed by the Porte every five years, but subject to
the approval of the Powers. On 22 February, 1879, the first
Bulgarian assembly of notables convened in the principality; on
28 April the new constitution was signed; and on 29 April Prince
Alexander of Battenberg was chosen as sovereign by the first
national assembly. In Eastern Rumelia, from the very first the
trend of events pointed to union with the Bulgarian
principality. In September, 1885, an insurrection broke out, and
a provisional regency proclaimed the union with Bulgaria. In
September, Alexander announced from Philippopolis the union of
the two countries and, after repelling a Servian invasion,
received recognition as Governor-General of Eastern Rumelia (5
April, 1886). The unexpected independence which Alexander had
shown in the face of Russia, brought him into disfavour with
that power, and a military conspiracy, secretly supported by
Russia, was successful in having him transported across the
frontier (20 August, 1886). He was recalled, it is true, by the
popular voice, after ten days, but, not wishing to rule without
Russia's favour, which Bulgaria found indispensable, and yet not
being able to gain the Tsar's friendship., he abdicated, 7
September, 1886. A regency, under Stambuloff, administered the
national affairs until a new sovereign was elected by the
National Assembly. The choice fell on the Catholic prince,
Ferdinand of Saxe-Koburg-Kohary, 7 July, 1887. As Ferdinand at
first left the national policy in the hands of Russia's enemy,
Stambuloff, Russia, as well as the Porte, refused to recognize
the new king. Only after the assassination of Stambuloff (1895)
was a reconciliation with Russia effected. The Sultan then
recognized Ferdinand as prince and governor-general, in view of
the fact that Ferdinand had his son Boris, heir to the throne,
baptized in the Greek orthodox faith (1896). The economic and
intellectual progress of the country is retarded by financial
complications, by partisanship in politics, and by the unrest
incident to the so-called Macedonian question.
STATISTICS
(a) Catholics, Latin Rite
The Catholics of Bulgaria are for the most part descendants of
the Bogomili or Paulicians converted by the Franciscans during
the sixteenth century, and are directly subject to the Diocese
of Nicopolis with its seat at Rustchuk, and the Vicariate
Apostolic of Sofia and Philippopolis, with the seat at
Philippopolis. The Diocese of Nicopolis (Diocecesis
Nicopolitana) contains, according to the Missiones Cattolicae
(Rome, 1907), about 13,000 Latin Catholics, 14 parishes, 3
stations, 5 secular and 18 regular priests, a great seminary in
Rustchuk, 3 parish schools for boys and 3 for girls, 3 notaries
of male religious orders (Passionists, Marists, and
Assumptionists); there are also houses of the Sisters of the
Assumption, with a boarding school at Varna; Dames de Sion, with
day school at Rustchuk, and Dominican Sisters from Cette,
France. The Vicariate Apostolic of Sofia a Philippopolis (Sofiae
et Philippolis), established in 1759, contains 11,880 Latin
Catholics, 1000 Greek Catholics, 13 parishes, 23 secular and 27
regular priests, 31 Capuchin Fathers, almost all engaged in
parochial work; 20 Assumptionists, Fathers and lay brothers,
with 4 foundations, one a college at Philippopolis, the only
Catholic college in Bulgaria; 2 Resurrectionists, 10 Brothers of
the Christian Schools, with a boarding and a day school at
Sofia; 40 French sisters of St. Joseph de l'Apparition, with 6
houses, a boarding school, orphan asylum and hospital at Sofia;
a boarding school and day school at Philippopolis, and a
boarding school and a day school at Burgas; 13 Austrian Sisters
of St. Vincent de Paul, with a hospital at Philippopolis; 22
Bulgarian Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis; and 7
Sisters of the Assumption. There are also 2 colleges for boys, 3
for girls, 2 hospitals, 3 orphanages and 3 asylums for girls.
(b) Eastern Catholics
While the Bulgarians were contending with the Greek patriarchate
for ecclesiastical autonomy, and the patriarch refused to make
any concession, a movement was set on foot among the Bulgarians
which pointed towards union with Rome. On 30 December, 1860, 120
deputies of the people petitioned the Apostolic Delegate to
receive them into the Roman Church on condition of the
recognition of their language and liturgy, and the appointment
of a bishop of their own nationality; almost 60,000 of their
fellow-countrymen joined in the request. Pius IX himself, 21
January, 1861, consecrated a priest named Solkolski its first
Vicar Apostolic of Uniat Bulgaria. This movement, however, did
not win the support of Catholic Europe, while the greatest
obstacles were placed in its way by Russia and the patriarchate
of Constantntinople. Sokolski lapsed back into schism in June,
1861, and embarked for Odessa on a Russian vessel; the majority
of the Bulgarian priests and laymen attached themselves to the
recently founded national exarchate. Only about 13,000
Bulgarians remained true to the Roman Church, and they live for
the most part outside of Bulgaria in the Turkish provinces of
Macedonia and Thrace. For these, two Vicariates Apostolic have
been erected. The Vicariate Apostolic of Thrace, with seat at
Adrianople, contains 3,000 Catholics, 14 parishes and stations,
20 churches and chapels, 16 native secular priests, 25
Resturrectionists in 3 houses and 10 Assumptionists in 3 houses,
36 Sisters of the Assumption, with a boarding school, 3 Sisters
of the Resurrection, 2 colleges, one in Kara-Agasch near
Adrianopolis under the Assumptionists and the other at
Adrianople under the Resurrectionists. The Vicariate Apostolic
of Macedonia, with its see at Saloniki, contains 5,950
Graeco-Bulgarian Catholics, 21 churches, 33 Bulgarian priests of
the Slavonic Rite, a seminary at Zeitenlink near Saloniki, 17
schools for boys and 10 for girls, 4 houses of the Congregation
of the Mission, with 15 priests, 6 houses of the Sisters of
Mercy, 4 of the Eucharistines, 3 orphan asylums.
(c) Other Oriental Churches
The Greek Orthodox church of Bulgaria is divided into 5
eparchies or provinces. The Bulgarians under the exarch (or
supreme lead of the Bulgarian National Church) are divided into
11 eparchies, 3 in Eastern Rumelia, with 2123 parishes, 78
monasteries for men, 15 for women, 1800 churches and 1906
clergy.
VAILHE in "Dict. de theol. Cath., II, 1174-1236, containing an
extensive bibliography; MIKLOSICH, "Monumenta Serbica" (Vienna,
1858); HILFERDING, "Geschichte der Serben un Bulgaren, tr. From
Russian (2 parts, Bautzen, 1856, 1864); D'AVRIL, "La Bulgarie
chretienne (Paris, 1861); L. DUCHESNE, "Les eglises separees"
(Paris, 1869); DUMONT, "Les Bulgares" (2nd ed., Paris, 1872);
JIRECEK, "Geschichte der Bulgaren" (Germ. Tr., Prague, 1876);
KANITZ, "Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan" (2nd ed., 3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1882); BALAN, Delle relazioni fra la chiesa Catolica e
gli Slavi" (Rome, 1880); FERMENDZIN, "Acta Bulgariae
ecclesiastica ab anno 1565 usque ad annum 1799" (Agram, 1887);
JIRECZEK in "Kirchenlexikon," II, 1459-67; SAMUELSON, "Bulgaria,
Past and Present" (London, 1888); DICEY, "The Peasant State: an
account of Bulgaria in 1894" (London, 1894); JIRECEK, "Das
Furstentum Bulgarien" (Prague, 1891); LAMOUCHE, "La Bulgarie
dans le passe et le present" (Paris, 1892), with bibliography;
RATTINGER, "Die Bulgaren und die griech. schismat. Kirchen", in
"Stimmen aus Maria Laach" (1873), IV, 45-57, 252-655; DRANDAR,
"Les evenements politiques en Bulgarie depuis 1876 jusqu'a nos
jours" (Paris, 1896); MARKOVICH, "Gli Slavi ed i papa" (Agram,
1897); STRAUSS, "Die Bulgaren" (Leipzig, 1898); DURASTEL,
"Annuaire international de la Bulgarie" (Sofia, 1898----);
FALKENEGG, "Aus Bulgariens Vergangenheit und Gegenwart" (Berlin,
1900); GELZER, "Der Patriarchat von Achrida" (Leipzig, 1902);
BOJAN, "Les Bulgares et le patriarche oecumenique" (Paris,
1905); VON MACH, "Der Machtbereich des bulgarischen Exarchats in
der Turkei" (Leipzig and Neuchatel, 1906); "Echos d'Orient"
(Paris, 1898----), I-X, passim; HERBERT, "By-Paths in the
Balkans" (London, (1906); MACGAHAN, "Turkish Atrocities in
Bulgaria" (London, 1876).
JOSEPH LINS
Bulla Aurea (Golden Bull)
Bulla Aurea
(Golden Bull).
A fundamental law of the Holy Roman Empire; probably the best
known of all the many ordinances of the imperial diet. It takes
its name from the golden case in which the seal attached to the
document proclaiming the decree was placed.
The law was signed by the Emperor Charles IV, January, 1356,
during the Diet of Nuremberg, and was revised at the Diet of
Metz in November of the same year. The contents of the Bulla
Aurea were of constitutional importance for the empire. It
ordained that each emperor should be chosen by election, the
right of voting being vested in electoral princes, the number of
whom was fixed at seven. As electors the edict appointed, on the
one side, the three ecclesiastical princes most closely
connected with the history of the empire i.e. the Archbishops of
Mainz, Trier, and Cologne. On the other side, the law settled
the question, as far as it was still in dispute, as to whether
the electoral vote pertained to certain secular principalities
or to certain ruling families. It ordained that the right
belonged to Bohemia, the Rhenish Palatinate, Saxony
(Sachsen-Wittenberg), and the Mark of Brandenburg; this made the
secular electors the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the
Rhine, Duke of Saxony, and Margrave of Brandenburg. The Bull
also defined the powers given by the imperial constitution to
the electors, taken as a body, and to certain individual
electors separately, both during a vacancy of the throne and
during an imperial reign. Thus the document granted to the
electors in their character as rulers of principalities certain
privileges which had been originally reserved to the German king
and emperor and were the signs of his sovereignty. The transfer
of these rights to subordinate rulers would, necessarily,
gradually make them independent of the head of the empire. The
Bull also provided for the preservation of peace in the empire
and enacted measures for holding in check the increasing
political importance of the rising free cities. In the main the
law was intended to confirm rights which had already had a
historical development and to settle disputed details of these
rights. Constitutional law in the Holy Roman Empire reached its
full growth between the years 1220 and 1555. As to the position
of the "Golden Bull" in connection with this development, see
GERMANY.
MARTIN SPAHN
Ven. Thomas Bullaker
Ven. Thomas Bullaker
(Also John Baptist).
A Friar Minor and English martyr, born at Chichester about the
year 1604; died at Tyburn, 12 October,1642. He was the only son
ot a pious as well-to-do physician of Chichester. His parents
were both fervent Catholics, and, following their example,
Bullaker grew up in the ways of innocence and piety. At an early
age he was sent to the English College at St-Omer, and from
there he went to Valladolid in Spain to complete his studies.
Convinced of his vocation to the Franciscan Order, after much
anxious deliberation, he received the habit at Abrojo, and a few
years later, in 1628, was ordained priest. Having left Spain to
labour on the English mission, he landed at Plymouth, but was
immediately seized and cast into prison. Liberated after two
weeks from the loathsome dungeon where he had suffered the most
untoward hardships, Bullaker by order of Father Thomas of St.
Francis, then Provincial in England, laboured for nearly twelve
years with much zeal and devotedness among the poor Catholics of
London. On the 11th of September, 1642, Bullaker was seized
while celebrating the Holy Sacrifice in the house of the pious
benefactress. He has left a partial and but touching account of
his apprehension and trial. He was condemned to be drawn on a
hurdle to Tyburn and there hanged, cut down alive, quartered and
beheaded. It is related that as he was going out of prison he
met Ven. Arthur Bell, a religious of his own order, who said to
him: "Brother, I was professed before you. Why do you take
precedence of me?" Bullaker answered: "It is the will of God.
But you will follow me." Bell remembered the prophetic words of
the pious Bullaker when his own day of martydom was at hand. The
cause of the beautification of Bullaker was introduced in Rome
in 1900.
STEPHEN M. DONOVAN
Bullarium
Bullarium
Bullarium is a term commonly applied to a collection of bulls
and other analogous papal documents, whether the scope of the
collection be general in character, or whether it be limited to
the bulls connected to any particular order, or institution, or
locality. The name bullarium seems to have been invented by the
canonist Laertius Cherobini who in 1586 published under the
title "Bullarium, sive Collectio diversarum Constitutionum
multorum Pontificum" a large folio volume of 1404 pages
containing 922 papal constitutions from Gregory VII down to
Sixtus V, the pope then reigning. With regard to this and all
subsequent collections, three things have carefully to be borne
in mind. First, whatever may have been the intrinsic importance
or binding force of any of the bulls so published, the selection
itself was a matter that depended entirely upon the arbitrary
choice of the various editors. As a collection the publication
had no official character. The only recognized exception to this
assertion is the first volume of a collection of his own bulls
which was sent by Benedict XIV in 1746 to the University of
Bologna to serve as a fons iuris, or source of legal principles.
Secondly, it was never seriously maintained, despite some
pretentious title pages, that these collections were in any
sense complete, or that they even contained all the
constitutions of more general interest. Thirdly, it was the
intention of the editors, at least at first, rather to exclude
than to include the papal pronouncements which had already been
incorporated into the text of canon law. The avowed object of
the early collections was to render assistance to canonists by
bringing within their reach papal enactments which either had
been overlooked by the compilers of the "corpus" or which had
been issued subsequently to the latest decrees included in it.
We may disregard in the present notice various collections of
relatively recent papal constitutions which were published in
the early part of the sixteenth century. A typical specimen of
such booklets is supplied by a rare little volume of sixty-two
pages printed at Rome per Stephanum Guillereti in regione
Parionis 1509, a copy of which is in the British Museum Library.
A contribution of more substantial volume appears to have been a
volume edited by Mazzutellus in 1579 which contained 723
documents. But it is to Laertius Cherubini that the credit is
usually given of creating the bullarium in substance as well as
in name. In the preface to the volume of which the title has
already been given, the editor refers to his experiences in the
ecclesiatical courts of Rome. In these courts I have noticed (he
says) that certain advocates and judges went completely astray
because they had not at hand the text of those apostolic
constitutions a knowledge of which is most necessary in treating
and pronouncing upon causes, seeing that in such constitutions
is embodied the whole of the most recent pontifical law. After
this explanation it is not surprising to find that out of
Cherubini's 922 documents more than 800 were of recent date,
that is to say they belonged to the hundred years immediately
preceding the appearance of the volume. Of this collection, a
second edition in three volumes, was printed at Rome in 1617,
and a third edition in four volumes extending in this case from
Leo I to Urban VIII, was prepared by the editor's son, Angelo
Cherubini, in 1638, with a supplement added in 1659. Other
editions followed, always somewhat enlarged. The fifth in six
volumes was brought out by two Franciscans at Rome, 1669-72.
THE LUXEMBURG BULLARIUM
Moreover, a fuller but not more accurate reprint with
supplementary volumes appeared in the eighteenth century,
nominally at Luxemburg, although the actual place of impression
is said to have been Geneva. Of this edition, which is one of
the most commonly met with in libraries, the first eight volumes
coming down to Benedict XVIII all bear the date 1727, while a
ninth and tenth volume, supplementing the earlier portion,
appeared in 1730. Other supplements followed at intervals. Four
volumes were published in 1741 covering respectively the periods
1670-89, 1689-1721, 1721-30, 1730-40. In the same series, and
still later, we have the following volumes: XV (1748), extending
over 1734-40; XVI (1752) 1740-45; XVII (1753), 1746-49; XVIII
(1754), 1748-52; XIX (1758), 1752-57. The last four volumes are
entirely taken up with the Bulls of Benedict XIV. Although this
is not the most important bullarium, it seemed worthwhile to
indicate the arrangement of this Luxemburg edition as it appears
to have been in part the source of the great confusion which is
to be found in many accounts of the subject, notably in the
recent article "Bullaire" in the "Dictionnaire de theologie
catholique." It is not quite true, as has sometimes been
supposed, that the "Luxemburg" editors contributed nothing of
their own to the collection. For example, in Vol. IX (1730) we
have two bulls of the English pope, Adrian IV, printed from the
originals at Geneva with engraved facsimiles of the rota and the
leaden bulla, and in fact the whole of the content of Vols. IX
and X represent a large measure of independent research. The
later volumes of the series, however, have simply been copied
from the Roman edition next to be mentioned.
MAINARDI'S ROMAN BULLARIUM
This Roman edition of the bullarium, which still remains the
most accurate and practically useful, bears on the title pages
of its thirty-two volumes, the name of the publisher, Girolamo
Mainardi, while the dedications to the cardinals prefixed to the
different volumes and extending from 1733 to 1762 are also
signed by him. The arrangement of the volumes, however, is
peculiar, and the neglect to indicate these peculiarities has
made the accounts given to this edition in most bibliographies
almost unintelligible. Mainardi began with the idea of printing
a supplement to the latest Roman edition of Cherubini's
bullarium. As this was six volumes and stopped short at the
pontificate of Clement X (1670-76), Mainardi called his first
published volume Tome VII, and reprinted the bulls of Clement X
from the beginning of his pontificate to his death. Moreover, an
engraved frontispiece prefixed to this volume, printed in 1733,
bears the words "Bullarium Romanum Tom. VII." The book further
contains a promise that the six volumes of Cherubini's bullarium
should in the course of time be reprinted in a corrected and
enlarged form, with the aid of the documents contained in the
secret archives of the Holy See. Seven other volumes followed in
sequence to this first. They were printed from 1734 to 1744 and
brought the collection from Clement X in 1670 to the accession
of Benedict XIV in 1740. Meanwhile, the publisher had engaged an
able scholar, Charles Cocquelines, to re-edit the six volumes of
Cherubini's bullarium from Leo I to Clement X. In his hands an
immense mass of material accumulated. The first volume was
printed in 1739 and it bore a slightly different title from that
of the installment which Mainardi had already published,
beginning at "Tom VII." Cocquelines' section was headed
"Bullarium privilegarium ac diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum
amplissima collectio" and in comparison with Cherubini's meager
gleanings from antiquity the epithet amplissima was fully
deserved. This series, like all good work, advanced very slowly.
A tabular arrangement will best show the details. The editor had
to make his numbering correspond with Cherubini's six volumes
and consequently some of the nominal tomi of the new edition
were divided into several parts:
I
II
II-V
VI-IX
X-XIV
XV-XX Tom. I
Tom. II
Tom. III (in 3 parts)
Tom. IV (in 4 parts)
Tom. V (in 5 parts)
Tom. VI (in 6 parts) 450-1061
1061-1181
1181-1521
1521-1588
1588-1626
1626-1669 1739
1740
1740-1743
1745-1747
1751-1756
1758-1762
Some time before the compilation of this series, Cocquelines had
died, and the last five volumes to appear did not bear his name.
Simultaneously with this amplified edition of Cherubini,
Mainardi had also been publishing, in folio, but somewhat
smaller, the four volumes of the bullarium of Benedict XIV, the
first of which, as already noted, appeared with that pontiff's
own authentication. In sum, the whole collection which issued
from Mainardi's press amounted to thirty-two folio volumes and
extended from Leo I in 450 to the death of Benedict XIV, 1758.
As this in time grew antiquated, Andrew Barberi began in 1835
the publication of the Bulls of Pope Clement XIII and his
successors "Bullarii Romani Continuato" (19 volumes, fol.),
Rome, 1835-57. These came down to the fourth year of Gregory
XVI, i.e. to 1834. There is also another series of the same kind
which appeared as a continuation of the Bullarium of Benedict
XIV at Prato in 1843-67 (10 vols., folio).
THE TURIN BULLARIUM
Finally, a large quarto edition of the bullarium was begun at
Turin under the auspices of Cardinal Gaudi in 1857, edited by
Tomasetti. It claims to be more comprehensive, better printed,
and better arranged than the work of Cocqueline, but the
additions made are insignificant and the typographical errors
are numerous. Moreover, among the documents added, especially in
Appendix I (1867), are included some whose authenticity is more
than doubtful. At Turin, twenty-two volumes were printed
(1857-72) down to Clement XII and five more, continuing the work
to the end of Benedict XIV, were added at Naples (1867-85).
PARTICULAR BULLARIA
Besides the general Bullaria of which we have so far spoken,
various particular bullaria have been compiled at different
times collecting the papal documents relating to this or that
religious order or institution or locality. For example, eight
volumes have recently been published by R. de Martinis under the
title "Jus Pontificium de Propaganda Fide" (Rome, 1888-98). This
is in substance the bullarium of the Congregation of Propaganda
brought up to date. Similarly, an exhaustive collection or
rather calendar of early papal documents concerning the churches
of Italy has been undertaken by P.F. Kehr under the title
"Italia Pontificia" (Berlin 1906). The expense is defrayed by
the Gottinger Academy. Of the more important religious orders
nearly all have at some time or other collected their privileges
in print. Among the most extensive of such compilations, which
formerly often went by the name "Mare Magnum" (the Great Ocean)
may be mentioned the Bullarium of the Dominicans, edited by
Ripoli and Bremond (eight vols., Rome, 1729-40); that of the
Franciscans, edited by Sbaralea (4 vols., Rome, 1758-80), with a
more modern continuation by Eubel, (3 vols., Rome, 1897-1904);
that of the Capuchins (7 vols., Rome, 1740-52); that of the
Benedictines of Monte Cassino (2 vols., Venice, 1650). All the
volumes mentioned here were folios, mostly of considerable bulk.
Historically speaking, the most interesting papal volumes are
often those contained in the "Regesta" (see BULLS and BRIEFS)
which have never been included in the general Bullarium. Since
the archives of the Vatican were thrown open to students by Leo
XIII in 1883, immense labor has been spent upon the copying and
publication of the Bulls contained in the "Regesta." but even
before this date, facilities for research were not infrequently
accorded. Many hundreds of copies of documents relating to Great
Britain were made for the British Government by Marino de
Marinis in the early part of the nineteenth century and are now
preserved in the British Museum. In 1873 the Reverend Joseph
Stevenson was sent to Rome for a similar purpose and the large
collection of transcripts made by him during four years'
residence may be consulted at the Record Office, London. Since
then, Messrs, Bliss and Tenlow have been engaged in the same
task and have published at the expense of the British Government
seven volumes of a "Calendar of Entries in the Papal Register
illustrating the History of Great Britain and Ireland." These
are primarily papal letters, and they extend from the beginning
of the thirteenth to the middle of the fifteenth century. The
members of the Ecole Française de Rome have been equally active
and it is mainly to them that we owe the publication of detailed
calendars of the entire content of the "regesta" of various
pontificates mostly of the thirteenth century. Those of
+ Honorius IV (1285-87),
+ Nicolaus IV (1288-92),
+ Benedict XI (1304-04)
have been published and are complete. Those of
+ Innocent IV (1243-54),
+ Urban IV (1261-64),
+ Clement VI (1265-68)
are all but complete; while great progress has been made with
those of
+ Gregory X and John XXI (1271-77),
+ Nicolaus III (1271-80),
+ Martin IV (1281-85),
+ Boniface VIII (1291-03),
+ Gregory IX (1227-41), and
+ Alexander IV (1254-61).
Besides these, the "Regesta" of Clement V (1305-1314) have been
published by the Benedictines in nine volumes folio at the cost
of Leo XIII, and those of John XXII (1316-34), as far as they
relate to France, are being printed by A. Coulon, while those of
the other Avignon popes are also in hand. The "Regesta" of
Innocent III and his successor Honorius III have long been
printed, and they are among the last volumes printed in the
Patrology of Migne. Finally among local bullaria we may
mentioned the considerable collections published some time ago
by Augustine Theiner for various countries under the general
heading of "Vetera Monumenta."
With regard to the early centuries, where no originals of
official copies exist to which we can make appeal, the task of
distinguishing genuine from spurious papal letters becomes
exceedingly delicate. The collection of Dom Coustant, "Epistolae
Romanorum Pontificorum" (Paris, 1721), is of the highest value,
but the compiler only lived to carry his work down to the year
440, and A. Thiele, who continued it, brought it no further than
553. Some further help has been provided by Hampe, regarding the
papal letters to Charlemagne and to Louis the Pious, and by
Herth-Gerenth for Sergius II. For practical purposes the chief
court of appeal for an opinion on all papal documents is the
"Regesta Pontificorum Romanorum" of Jaffe', much improved in its
second edition by its editors, Wattenbach, Ewald, Kalterbrunner,
and Löwenfeld. In this a brief synopsis of given of all existing
papal documents known to be in existence, from the time of Peter
to that of Innocent III (1198), with indications of the
collections in which they have been printed and with an appendix
dealing with spurious documents. This most useful work has been
continued by Potthast to the year 1304 (2 vols., Berlin).
It may be added that compendiums have also been published of the
"Bullarium Romanum" as printed in the eighteenth century. Of
these the most valuable is probably that of Guerra
"Pontificarium Constitutionem in Bullario Magno contentarum
Epitome" (4 vols., Venice, 1772), which possesses a very
complete and useful index. Commentaries on the bullarium or on
large portions of it have been published by the Jesuit J. B.
Scortia (Lyons, 1625), by the Dominican, M. de Gregorio (Naples,
1648), and by Cardinal Vincent Petra (Rome, 1705-26). Finally,
attention may be called to the important bulls contained in a
useful little volume recently edited by Galante "Fontes Juris
Canonici" (Innsbruck, 1906).
No long bibliography is needed for an article which is itself
bibliographical. Ortolan in Dict. de theol. cath., II, 1243-55,
with fuller details regarding monastic and other bullaria. See
remark, p. 49 col. 2 under subtitle The Luxemburg Bullarium.
Grisar in Kirkenlex, II, 1479-82; Pitra, Analecta Solesmensia
Novissima (Frascati, 1885); Philips, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon,
1845), IV, 483 sqq.; Werne, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1905), I,
379.
HERBERT THURSTON
The Spanish Bull-Fight
The Spanish Bull-Fight
Neither the English term nor the German (Stiergefecht) used to
designate this popular diversion of the Spaniards, can be said
to express adequately the essential idea of the Spanish corrida
de toros.
Great has been the discussion as to the origin of this
spectacle. Some attribute it to the Roman Circus, where men
contended with wild beasts, among them wild bulls; others--Doñ
Nicolás de Moratin, for example--to the customs of the ancient
Celtiberians. As Spain was infested by wild bulls, first
necessity and afterwards sport led to this personal combat. In
this opinion, indeed, is to be found what might be called the
philosophic origin of the bull-fight. Man, surrounded by wild
natural conditions, saw himself obliged to struggle with wild
beasts in order to protect himself from them; and as the peoples
naturally acclaimed as heroes those who slew in single combat
these ferocious animals, so, when the necessity of protecting
life had ceased, brave men still sought glory in these
struggles. (In this connection the killing of the Calydonian
boar by the Ætolians, as related by Homer, the legend of
Hercules and the Nemean lion, the Catalonian legend of Wilfrid
slaying the Tarasque, and the Swiss legend preserved by Schiller
in his "William Tell", with many others of a like nature,
suggest themselves as examples.) But if, putting aside these a
priori considerations, we turn our attention to historical
facts, we shall find that the Spanish bull-fight originated in a
Moorish custom.
To understand this better it will be necessary to distinguish
between three kinds of bull-fights: (1) caballerescas, (2)
populares, and (3) gladiatorias.
(1) Corridas Caballerescas
The corridas caballerescas had their origin, without a doubt, in
the usages of the Arabo-Spanish jinetes (cavaliers or mounted
men-at-arms) who, to accustom themselves to the activities of
war, occupied themselves in time of peace with exercises in the
use of arms, among which exercises were fights with wild bulls;
the Moorish cavaliers fought on horseback, killing the bulls
with spears, thus combining courage with knightly address. From
historical sources we know that the Cid Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar
was the first Christian to vie with the Arab knights in the
sport of killing fierce bulls, spearing several from his horse
in the year 1040, to the enthusiastic admiration of Ferdinand I
of Castile. The lawyer Francisco de Cepeda, in his "Resumpta
Historial de España", assures us that in 1100 there were
bull-fights for the public, and that in Leon there was a
bull-fight on the occasion of the marriage of Doña Urraca,
daughter of Alfonso VIII, to the King Doñ Garcia of Navarre.
These corridas caballerescas reached the highest degree of
splendour in the reign of John II, when plazas began to be
built, as we see by a story of the Marques de Villena. The
marriage of John II to Doña María de Aragon (20 October, 1418)
was celebrated by corridas in Medina del Campo. In the last
epoch of the reconquest, the intercourse, frequent in times of
peace, between the Spaniards and the Moors of Granada--where
bull-fights were held until the time of Boabdil--resulted in an
increase of valour among the Christian cavaliers, and a desire
to demonstrate it in this dangerous sport.
(2) Corridas Populares
From this time the bull-fight developed into a popular
amusement, and became so rooted in the affections of the Spanish
people that neither Isabella the Catholic, who wished to
suppress it, nor Philip II, nor Charles III, dared issue an
order that would prohibit it absolutely. The Emperor Charles V,
although he had not been educated in Spain, killed a bull during
the festivities held in Valladolid to celebrate the birth of his
son Philip. The first Bourbons were educated in France and
naturally did not display much fondness for the popular corridas
de toros. The corridas populares, heritage of the Mohammedan
population, more especially in Valencia and Andalusia, differ
from the caballerescas in their democratic character. Bulls not
quite so ferocious are selected and are fought on foot,
sometimes in an enclosure formed of wagons and planks, sometimes
through the streets, in which case the bull is generally tied to
a long rope. In these corridas populares the bull is not killed,
but after the populace has amused itself with the bull,
provoking him, and then fleeing from his attack, a tame cow is
let loose and the bull follows her quietly to the pen. Generally
the bull is taken to the slaughter-house and the meat used for
the feasts that follow.
(3) Corridas Gladiatorias
The corridas gladiatorias are those in which the participants
are professionals, and these are the ones which have given rise
among foreigners to so much criticism of this popular diversion
of the Spaniards. Francisco Romero, a native of Ronda, about the
middle of the eighteenth century, sets forth in the "Arte
Taurino" (Tauromaquia) the rules which are the guiding principle
of these contests. Romero invented the muleta, a scarlet cloth
laid over a stick, used to attract the attention of the bull,
and he was the first to kill a bull on foot and face to face.
His skill was inherited by his son Juan, and his grandsons,
Pedro, José, and Antonio. After this the different skilful
manoeuvres (suertes) that give variety to the bull-fight were
evolved. Juan Romero was the first to organize a cuadrilla de
toreros (band, or company, of bullfighters).
THE MODERN BULL-FIGHT
The modern bull-fight begins with the entrance of the toreros
into the plaza (ring), marching to music, and dressed in richest
satin, embroidered in silk or gold thread. The costume consists
of tight-fitting satin knee-breeches, a short open Andalusian
coat and vest, silk hose, and shoes without heels. The shoulders
are decorated with handsome shoulder knots which in reality
serve as protection in case of falls, as also the moña, a pad
which is worn on the head, and which is covered with a rich
cloth cap ornamented with tassels on each side. From the
shoulders a short cape of embroidered satin is suspended.
In the centre of the ring they ceremoniously salute the
presiding official--the governor, sometimes the king
himself--and receive from him the key of the bull pen (toril).
Then each one takes his place. At the four equi-distant points
of the circumference of the ring the picadores are situated.
These are men mounted on old or otherwise incapacitated horses,
with cow-boy saddles, very large iron stirrups, and one leg
protected against the bull's horns by the espinillera, an
apparatus of iron.
The bugle now gives the signal, the door of the pen opens, and
the first bull is released. The capeadores attract the bull's
attention with their scarlet capes, leading him towards the
picadores who ride into the middle of the ring to meet him, and
parry his attacks with their spears. If the bull happens to
unhorse one of the picadores, or kill his horse, the capeadores
rush to the rescue, attracting the bull once more with their
scarlet capes, and carrying him off to another part of the ring.
When the picadores have had their turn with the bull, the bugle
sounds for banderillas. These are tiny steel points to which are
attached many coloured ribbons or papers, which are stuck in the
fleshy portion of the bull's neck by the banderilleros, who
await his coming in the centre of the ring, facing him with arms
extended.
These, and many other tricks, such as el salto de la garrocha,
etc., besides giving incident and variety to the spectacle, have
as their object to weaken the enormous strength of the bull, so
as to render possible and less dangerous the work of the
matador--not, as many imagine, to infuriate the bull still more.
When the presiding officer gives the signal for the death of the
bull, the matador draws near the bull with the muleta in his
left hand and the sword in his right hand; he calls the bull to
him, or throws himself upon him, and plunges the sword into the
neck of the bull. If he strikes him in the nape of the neck,
killing him instantly, it is called descabellar, but if the bull
is simply wounded the puntillero puts an end to his life with a
dagger. The music now strikes up, while two little mules, richly
caparisoned, drag out the bull and the dead horses. This is
repeated again and again, the number of bulls being usually
eight for each corrida.
The Morality of the Bullfight
Bull-fights have occasioned many accusations of barbarity
against the Spaniards.
+ The reason for this is, first, an utter ignorance of a game in
which man with his reason and dexterity overcomes the brutal
strength and ferocity of the bull. Foreigners as a rule think
that the Spanish populace go to the bull-fight to witness the
shedding of human blood. This is false. Generally there are no
casualties; and when an accident does occur, no one derives
pleasure from it; on the contrary, all deplore it.
+ Second, the misconception implies a lack of comparison with
other spectacles. The risks taken by acrobats, tight-rope
dancers, and tamers of wild beasts are no less barbarous than
those of the bull-fight, although the performances themselves
are less diverting. And prize-fighting is surely much more
brutal, seeing that the vanquished is a human being and not a
brute.
+ Lastly, the modern theatre is frequently more evil in its
effects than bull-fighting, which, whatever else may be said
of it, arouses no immoral or anti-social passions.
The authorities of the Catholic Church have often condemned
bull-fighting. St. Pius V (1 November, 1567, Const. "De salute")
prohibited this form of amusement everywhere, threatening with
many penalties the princes who countenanced it, as well as the
performers and spectators, especially clergymen and religious.
But in Spain to-day these prohibitions are not in force. Gregory
XIII (23 August, 1575, "Exponi") moderated the constitution of
St. Pius V for Spanish laymen, and Clement VIII (Bull "Suscepti
muneris", 12 January, 1597) reduced it to a jus commune,
limiting the prohibition to holidays and to the clergy.
Moralists as a rule are of the opinion that bull-fighting as
practised in Spain is not forbidden by the natural law, since
the skill and dexterity of the athletes precludes immediate
danger of death or of serious injury (cf. P.V, Casus
conscientiae, Vromant, Brussels, 1895, 3d ed., I, 353, 354;
Gury-Ferreres, Comp. Th. mor., Barcelona, 1906, I, n. 45). Even
in Spain and Spanish America they have been forbidden to
clergymen and religious, by Pius V, as well as by the Plenary
Council for Spanish America (n. 650; cf. also C. prov.,
Vallisol., I, p. 5, tit. 1, n. 11). The Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo
received the same answer from the Penitentiaria (19 September,
1893).
It is false to say that the Spanish clergy encourage these
spectacles. Although public festivals are celebrated with
religious ceremonies as well as bull-fights, the clergy is in
no-wise responsible for this. If both are announced on the same
bill poster, the authorities, or particular associations, are
responsible for the printing of this, not the clergy.
It is worthy of note that foreigners who have been present at
bull-fights are not so harsh in their judgments as those who
have formed an opinion from what they have heard about them from
the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
RAMÓN RUIZ AMADO
Angelique Bullion
Angélique Bullion
Born in Paris, at commencement of the seventeenth century, her
parents being Guichard Favre and Madeleine Brulart de Sillery.
Claude de Bullion, her husband, was Keeper of the Seals and
Superintendent of Finances under Louis XIII; Cardinal Richelieu
annually rewarded his intelligent and disinterested
administration by a bonus of 100,000 livres. After his death
(1640), her four children being well provided for, she followed
the advice of the Recollet Father Rapin, and contributed in
1641-42, 60,000 livres to the foundation of Ville-Marie, now the
city of Montreal, Canada. She founded and endowed (1643) a
Hotel-Dieu in honour of St. Joseph, begun at Ville-Marie (1642)
by Mademoiselle Mance, and confided in 1657-59 to the care of
the Sisters of St. Joseph, an order instituted at La Flèche by a
pious layman, Royer de la Dauversiére, one of the joint founders
of Montreal. She likewise contributed more than 20,000 livres
for the defence of the settlement against the Iroquois Indians,
thereby helping to solve the whole colony of New France from
destruction. She always insisted on being mentioned in the deeds
ratifying her donations as "An unknown benefactress". Her
identity was revealed only after her death.
LIONEL LINDSAY
Bulls and Briefs
Bulls and Briefs
A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so
called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon
water (Lat. bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term
came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and
royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and
by a further development, the name, from designating the seal,
was eventually attached to the document itself. This did not
happen before the thirteenth century and the name bull was only
a popular term used almost promiscuously for all kinds of
instruments which issued from the papal chancery. A much more
precise acceptance has prevailed since the fifteenth century,
and a bull has long stood in sharp contrast with certain other
forms of papal documents. For practical purposes a bull may be
conveniently defined to be "an Apostolic letter with a leaden
seal," to which one may add that in its superscription the pope
invariably takes the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei.
In official language papal documents have at all times been
called by various names, more or less descriptive of their
character. For example, there are "constitutions," i.e.,
decisions addressed to all the faithful and determining some
matter of faith or discipline; "encyclicals," which are letters
sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at least to all those
in one particular country, and intended to guide them in their
relations with their flocks; "decrees," pronouncements on points
affecting the general welfare of the Church; "decretals"
(epistolae decretales), which are papal replies to some
particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the
force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases. "Rescript,"
again, is a form applicable to almost any form of Apostolic
letter which has been elicited by some previous appeal, while
the nature of a "privilege" speaks for itself. But all these,
down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by
the papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with
leaden seals, and it is common enough to apply the term bull
even to those very early papal letters of which we know little
more than the substance, independently of the forms under which
they were issued.
It will probably be most convenient to divide the subject into
periods, noting the more characteristic features of papal
documents in each age.
I. EARLIEST TIMES TO ADRIAN I (772)
There can be no doubt that the formation of a chancery or bureau
for drafting and expediting of official papers was a work of
time. Unfortunately, the earliest papal documents known to us
are only preserved in copies or abstracts from which it is
difficult to draw any safe conclusions as to the forms observed
in issuing the originals. For all that, it is practically
certain that no uniform rules can have been followed as to
superscription, formula of salutation, conclusion, or signature.
It was only when some sort of registry was organized, and copies
of earlier official correspondence became available, that a
tradition gradually grew up of certain customary forms that
ought not to be departed from. Except for the unsatisfactory
mention of a body of notaries charged with keeping a record of
the Acts of the Martyrs, c. 235 (Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis,
I, pp. c-c1), we meet with no clear reference to the papal
archives until the time of Julius I (337-353), though in the
pontificate of Damascus, before the end of the same century,
there is mention of a building appropriate to this special
purpose. Here, in the scrinium, or archivium sanctæ Romanæ
ecclesiæ, the documents must have been registered and kept in a
definite order, for extracts and copies still in existence
preserve traces of their numbering. These collections or regesta
went back to the time of Pope Gelasius (492-496) and probably
earlier. In the correspondence of Pope Hormisdas (514-525) there
are indications of some official endorsement recording the date
at which letters addressed to him were received, and for the
time of St. Gregory the Great (590-604) Ewald has been at least
partially successful in reconstructing the books which contained
the copies of the pope's epistles. There can be little doubt
that the Pontifical chancery of which we thus infer the
existence was modeled upon that of the imperial court. The
scrinium, the regionary notaries, the higher officials such as
the primicerius and the secundarius, the arrangement of the
Regesta by indictions, etc., are all probably imitations of the
practice of the later empire. Hence we may infer that the code
of recognized forms soon established itself, analogous to that
observed by the imperial notaries. One formulary of this
description is probably still preserved to us in the book called
"Liber Diurnus," the bulk of which seems to be inspired by the
official correspondence of Pope Gregory the Great. In the
earlier papal letters, however, there are as yet but few signs
of the observance of traditional forms. Sometimes the document
names the pope first, sometimes the addressee. For the most part
the pope bears no title except Sixtus episcopus or Leo episcopus
catholicae ecclesiæ, sometimes, but more rarely he is called
Papa. Under Gregory the Great, servus servorum Dei (servant of
the servants of God) was often added after episcopus -- Gregory,
it is said, having selected this designation as a protest
against the arrogance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, John
the Faster, who called himself "Ecumenical Bishop." But though
several of St. Gregory's successors followed him in this
preference, it was not until the ninth century that the phrase
came to be used invariably in documents of moment. Before Pope
Adeodatus (elected 672) few salutations were found, but he used
the form "salutatem a Deo et benedictionem nostram." The now
consecrated phrase "salutatem et apostolicam benedictionem"
hardly ever occurs before the tenth century. The Benedictine
authors of "Nouveau traité de diplomatique" in ascribing a much
earlier date to this formula were misled by a forged bull
purporting to be addressed to the monastery at St. Benignus at
Dijon. Again, in these early letters the pope often addressed
his correspondent, more especially when he was a king or a
person of high dignity, by the plural Vos. As ages went on, this
became rarer, and by the second half of the twelfth century, it
had completely disappeared. On the other hand, it may be noticed
incidentally that persons of all ranks, in writing to the pope,
invariably addressed him as Vos. Sometimes a salutation was
introduced by the pope at the end of his letter just before the
date--for example, "Deus te incolumem custodiat" or "Bene vale
frater carissime." This final salutation was a matter of
importance, and it is held by high authorities (Bresslau,
"Papyrus und Pergament, 21; Ewald in Neues Archiv," III, 548)
that it was added in the pope's own hand, and that it was the
equivalent of his signature. The fact that in classical times
the Romans authenticated their letters not by signing their
names, but by a word of farewell, lends probability to this
view. In the earliest original Bulls preserved to us BENE VALETE
is written at full length in capitals. Moreover, we have at
least some contemporary evidence of the practice before the time
of Pope Adrian. The text of a letter of Pope Gregory the Great
is preserved in a marble inscription at the basilica of St. Paul
Outside the Walls. As the letter directs that the document
itself is to be returned to the papal archives (Scrinium), we
may assume that the copy on stone accurately represents the
original. It is addressed to Felix the subdeacon and concludes
with the formula BENE VALE. Dat. VIII Kalend. Februarius imp.
du. n. Phoca PP. anno secundo, et consultatus eius anno primo,
indict. 7. This suggests that such letters were fully dated and
indeed we find traces of dating even in extant copies as early
as the time of Pope Siricius (384-398). We have also some bullæ
or leaden seals preserved apart from the documents to which they
were once attached. One of these dates back perhaps to the
pontificate of John III (560-573) and another certainly belongs
to Deusdedit (615-618). The earliest specimens simply bear the
pope's name on one side and the word papæ on the other.
II. SECOND PERIOD (772-1048)
In the time of Pope Adrian the support of Pepin and Charlemagne
had converted the patrimony of the Holy See into a sort of
principality. This no doubt paved the way for changes in the
forms observed in the chancery. The pope now takes the first
place in the superscription of letters unless they are addressed
to sovereigns. We also find the leaden seal used more uniformly.
But especially we must attribute to the time of Adrian the
introduction of the "double date" endorsed at the foot of the
bull. The first date began with the word Scriptum and after a
chronological entry, which mentioned only the month and the
indiction, added the name of the functionary who drafted or
engrossed the document. The other, beginning with Data (in later
ages Datum), indicated, with a new and more detailed
specification of year and day, the name of the dignitary who
issued the bull after it had received its final stamp of
authenticity by the addition of the seal. The pope still wrote
the words BENE VALETE in capitals with a cross before and after,
and in certain bulls of Pope Sylvester II we find some few words
added in shorthand or "Tyronian notes." In other cases the BENE
VALETE is followed by certain dots and by a big comma, by a S S
(subscripsi), or by a flourish, all of which no doubt served as
a personal authentication. To this period belong the earliest
extant bulls preserved to us in their original shape. They are
all written upon very large sheets of papyrus in a peculiar
handwriting of the Lombard type, called sometimes littera
romana. The annexed copy of a facsimile in Mabillion's "De re
diplomaticâ" reproducing part of a bull of Pope Nicolaus I
(863), with the editor's interlinear decipherment, will serve to
give an idea of the style of writing. As these characters were
even then not easily read outside of Italy it seems to have been
customary in some cases to issue at the same time a copy upon
parchment in ordinary minuscule. A French writer of the tenth
century speaking of a privilege obtained from Pope Benedict VII
(975-984) says that the petitioner going to Rome obtained a
decree duly expedited and ratified by apostolic authority, two
copies of which, one in our own character (nostra littera) on
parchment, the other in the Roman character on papyrus, he
deposited on his return in our archives. (Migne, P. L., CXXXVII,
817) Papyrus seems to have been used almost uniformly as the
material for these official documents until the early years of
the eleventh century, after which it was rapidly superseded by a
rough kind of parchment. Apart from a small fragment of a bull
from Adrian I (22 January, 788) preserved in the national
library at Paris, the earliest original bull that remains to us
is one of Pope Paschal I (11 July, 819). It is still to be found
in the capitular archives of Ravenna, to which church it was
originally addressed. The total number of papyrus bulls at
present known to be in existence is twenty-three, the latest
being one issued by Benedict VIII (1012-24) for the monastery of
Hildesheim. All these documents at one time had leaden seals
appended to them, though in most cases these have disappeared.
The seal was attached with laces of hemp and it still bore only
the name of the pontiff and the word papæ on the other. After
the year 885, the letters of the pope's name were usually
stamped round the seal in a circle with a cross in the middle.
The details specified in the "double dates" of these early bulls
afford a certain amount of indirect information about the
personnel of the papal chancery. The phrase scriptum per manum
is vague and leaves uncertain whether the person mentioned was
the official who drafted or merely engrossed the bull, but we
hear in this connection of persons described as notarius,
scriniarius (archivist), proto scrinarius sanctæ Romanæ
ecclesiæ, cancellarius, ypocancellarius, and after 1057 of
camerarius, or later still notarius S. palatii. On the other
hand, the datarius, the official mentioned under the heading
data, who presumably delivered the instrument to the parties,
after having superintended the subscriptions and the apposition
of the seal, seems to have been an official of still higher
consequence. In earlier documents he bears the titles
primicerius sanctæ sedis apostolicae, senior et consiliarius,
etc., but as early as the ninth century we have the well-known
phrase bibliothecarius sanctæ sedis apostolicæ, and later
cancellarius and bibliothecarius, as a combined title borne by a
cardinal, or perhaps by more than one cardinal at once. Somewhat
later still (under Innocent III), the cancellarius seemed to
have threatened to develop into a functionary who was
dangerously powerful, and the office was suppressed. A
vice-chancellor remained, but this dignity also was abolished
before 1352. But this of course was much later than the period
we have now reached.
III. THIRD PERIOD (1048-1198)
The accession of Leo IX, in 1048, seems to have inaugurated a
new era in the procedure of the chancery. A definite tradition
had by this time been created, and though there is still much
development we find uniformity of usage in documents of the same
nature. It is at this point that we begin to have clear
distinctions between two classes of bulls of greater and less
solemnity. The Benedictine authors of "Nouveau traité de
diplomatique" call them great and little bulls. Despite a
protest in modern times from M. Léopold Delisle, who would
prefer to describe the former class as "privileges" and the
latter as "letters," this nomenclature has been found
sufficiently convenient, and it corresponds, at any rate, to a
very marked distinction observable in the papal documents of the
eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. The most
characteristic features of the "great bulls" are the following:
1. In the superscription the words servus servorum Dei are
followed by a clause of perpetuity, e.g., in perpetuam
memoriam (abbreviated into IN PP. M) or ad perpetuam rei
memoriam. In contrast to this the little bulls usually have
salutatem et apostolicam benedictionem, but those words also
appear in some great bulls after the clause of perpetuity.
2. After the second quarter of the twelfth century, the great
bulls were always subscribed by the pope and a certain number
of cardinals (bishops, priests, and deacons). The names of the
cardinal-bishops are written in the center, under that of the
pope; those of cardinal-priests on the left, and those of
cardinal-deacons on the right, while an occasional blank shows
that space has been left for the name of a cardinal who
accidentally failed to be present. The pope has no cross
before his name; the cardinals have. Earlier than this, even
the great bulls were subscribed by the pope alone, unless they
embodied conciliar or consistorial decrees, in which case the
names of cardinals and bishops were also appended.
3. At the foot of the document to the left of the signature of
the pope is placed the rota or wheel. In this the outer
portion of the wheel is formed by two concentric circles and
within the space between these circles is written the pope's
signum or motto, generally a brief text of scripture chosen by
the new pontiff at the beginning of his reign. Thus Leo IX's
motto was "Miseracordia domini plena est terra," Adrian IV's
"Oculi mei semper ad dominum." Before the words of the motto a
cross is always marked, and this is believed to have been
traced by the hand of the pope himself. Not only in the case
of the pope, but even in the case of the cardinals, the
signatures appear not to have been their own actual
handwriting. In the center of the rota we have the names of
Sts. Peter and Paul, above and beneath them the name of the
reigning pope.
4. To the right of the signature opposite the rota stands
monogram which stands for Bene Valete. From the time of Leo
IX, and possibly somewhat earlier, the words are never written
in full, but as a sort of grotesque. It seems clear that the
Bene Valete is no longer to be regarded as the equivalent of
the pope's signature or authentification. It is simply an
interesting survival of an earlier form of salutation.
5. As regards the body of the document, the pope's letter, in the
case of great bulls always ends with certain imprecatory and
prohibitory clauses, Decernimus ergo, etc., Siqua igitur, etc.
On the other hand, Cunctis autem, etc., is a formula of
blessing. These and the like clauses are generally absent from
the "little bulls," but when they appear--and this happens
sometimes--the wording used is somewhat different.
6. In the eleventh century it was usual to write Amen at the end
of the text of a bull and to repeat it as many time as
necessary to fill up the line.
7. In appending the date, or more precisely, in adding the clause
which begins the datum, the custom was to enter the place, the
name of the datarius, the day of the month (expressed
according to the Roman method) the indiction, the year of Our
Lord's Incarnation, and the regnal year of the pontiff, who is
mentioned by his name. An example from a bull of Adrian IV
will make the matter clear: "Datum Laterani per manu Rolandi
sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ presbyteri cardinalis et cancellarii,
XII Kl. Junii, indic. Vo, anno dominicae incar. MCLVIIo
pontificatus vero domini Adriani papæ quarti anno tertio."
Before this period it was also usual to insert the first dating
clause, "Scriptum," and there was sometimes an interval of a few
days between the "Scriptum" and the "Datum." The use of the
double date, however, soon came to be neglected even in "great
bulls" and before 1124 it had gone out of fashion. This was
probably a result of the general employment of "little bulls,"
the more distinctive features of which may now be specified.
1. Although great and little bulls alike begin with the pope's
name--Urbanius, let us say, or Leo, "episcopus, servus
servorum Dei"--in the little bulls we have no clause of
perpetuity, but instead of it there follows immediately
"salutatem et apostolicam benedictionem."
2. The formulae of imprecation, etc., at the end only occur by
exception, and they are in any case more precise than those of
the great bulls.
3. The little bulls have no rota, no Bene Valete monogram and no
subscription of pope and cardinals.
The purpose served by this distinction between the great and
little bulls becomes tolerably clear when we look more narrowly
into the nature of their contents and the procedure followed in
expediting them. Excepting those which are concerned with
purposes of great solemnity or public interest, the majority of
the "great bulls" now in existence are in the nature of
confirmations of property or charters of protection accorded to
monasteries and religious institutions. At an epoch when there
was much fabrication of such documents, those who procured bulls
from Rome wished at any cost to secure that the authenticity of
their bulls should be above suspicion. A papal confirmation,
under certain conditions, could be pleaded as itself
constituting sufficient evidence of title in cases where the
original deed had been lost or destroyed. Now the "great bulls"
on account of their many formalities and the number of hands
they passed through, were much more secure from fraud of all
kinds, and the parties interested were probably willing to
defray the additional expenditure that might be entailed by this
form of instrument. On the other hand, by reason of the same
multiplication of formalities, the drafting, signing, stamping,
and delivery of a great bull was necessarily a matter of
considerable time and labor. The little bulls were much more
expeditious. Hence we are confronted by the curious anomaly that
during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, when
both forms of document were in use, the contents of the little
bulls are, from an historical point of view immensely more
interesting and important than those of the bulls in solemn
form. Of course the little bulls may themselves be divided into
various categories. The distinction between litteræ communes and
curiales seems rather to have belonged to a later period, and to
have rather concerned the manner of entry in the official
"Regesta," the communes being copies into the general
collection, the curiales into a special volume in which
documents were preserved which by reason of their form or their
contents stood apart from the rest. We may note, however, the
distinction between tituli and mandamenta. The tituli were
letters of a gracious character--donations, favors, or
confirmations constituting a "title." They were indeed little
bulls and lacked the subscriptions of cardinals, the rota etc.,
but on the other hand, they preserved certain features of
solemnity. Brief imprecatory clauses, like Nulli ergo, Si quis
autem, are usually included, the pope's name at the beginning is
written in large letters, and the initial is an ornamental
capital, while the leaden seal is attached with silken laces of
red and yellow. As contrasted with the tituli, the mandamenta,
which were the "orders," or instructions, of the popes, observe
fewer formalities, but are more business-like and expeditious.
They have no imprecatory clauses, the pope's name is written
with an ordinary capital letter, and the leaden seal is attached
with hemp. But it was by means of these little bulls, or
litteræ, and notably of the mandamenta, that the whole papal
administration, both political and religious, was conducted. In
particular, the decretals, on which the whole science of Canon
Law is built up, invariably took this form.
IV. FOURTH PERIOD (1198-1431)
Under Innocent III, there again took place what was practically
a reorganization of the papal chancery. But even apart from
this, we might find sufficient reason for beginning a new epoch
at this date in the fact that the almost complete series of
Regesta preserved in the Vatican archives go back to this
pontificate. It must not, of course, be supposed that all the
genuine bulls issued at Rome were copied into the Regesta before
they were transmitted to their destination. There are many
perfectly authentic bulls which are not found there, but the
existence of this series of documents places the study of papal
administration from this time forward on a new footing.
Moreover, with their aid it is possible to make out an almost
complete itinerary of the medieval popes, and this alone is a
matter of considerable importance. In light of the Regesta were
are able to understand more clearly the working of the papal
chancery. There were, it seems, four principals bureaus or
offices. At the office of the "Minutes" certain clerks
(clerici), in those days really clerics, and known then or later
as abbreviatores, drew up in precise form the draft (litera
notata) of the document to be issued in the pope's name. Then
this draft, after being revised by a higher official (either one
of the notaries or the vice-chancellor) passed to the
"Engrossing" office, where other clerks, called grossatores or
scriptores, transcribed in a large official hand (in grossam
literam) the copy or copies to be sent to the parties. At the
"Registration" office again it was the duty of the clerks to
copy such documents into the books, known as Regesta, specially
kept for the purpose. Why only some were copied and others not,
is still uncertain, though it seems probable that in any cases
this was done at the request of the parties interested, who were
made to pay for the privilege which was regarded as an
additional security. Lastly, at the office of "Bulls," the seal,
which now bore the heads of the two apostles on one side, and
the name of the pope on the other, was affixed by the officials
called bullatores or bullarii. At the beginning of the
thirteenth century, the great bulls, or privilegia, as they were
then usually called, with their complex forms and multiple
signatures became notably more rare, and when the papal court
was transferred to Avignon in 1309 they fell practically into
disuse save for a few extraordinary occasions. The lesser bulls
(litteræ) were divided, as we have seen, into tituli and
mandamenta, which became more and more clearly distinguished
from each other not only in their contents and formulæ but in
the matter of writing. Moreover, the rule of authenticating the
letter with a leaden seal began in certain cases to be broken
through, in favor of a seal of wax bearing the impression of the
"ring of the fisherman." The earliest mention of the new
practice seems to occur in a letter of Pope Clement IV to his
nephew (7 March, 1265). We do not write [he says] to thee or to
our intimates under a [leaden] bull, but under the signet of the
fisherman which the Roman pontiffs use in their private affairs.
(Potthast, Regesta, no, 19,051) Other examples are forthcoming
belonging to the same century. The earliest impression of this
seal now preserved seems to be one lately discovered in the
treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum at the Lateran, and belonging
to the time of Nicholas III (1277-80). It represents St. Peter
fishing with a rod and line and not as at present drawing his
net.
V. FIFTH PERIOD (1431-1878)
The introduction of briefs, which occurred at the beginning of
the pontificate of Eugenius IV, was clearly prompted for the
same desire for greater simplicity and expedition which had
already been responsible for the disappearance of the greater
bulls and the general adoption of the less cumbersome
mandamenta. A brief (breve, i.e., "short") was a compendious
papal letter which dispensed with some of the formalities
previously insisted on. It was written on vellum, generally
closed, i.e., folded, and sealed in red wax with the ring of the
fisherman. The pope's name stands first, at the top, normally
written in capital letters thus: PIUS PP III; and instead of the
formal salutation in the third person used in bulls, the brief
at once adopts a direct form of address, e.g., Dilecte
fili--Carissime in Christo fili, the phrase being adapted to the
rank and character of the addressee. The letter begins by way of
preamble with a statement of the case and cause of writing and
this is followed by certain instructions without minatory
clauses or other formulæ. At the end the date is expressed by
the day of the month and year with a mention of the seal--for
example in this form: Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum, sub
annulo Piscatoris die V Marii, MDLXXXXI, pont. nostri anno
primo. The year here specified, which is used in dating briefs,
is probably to be understood in any particular case as the year
of the Nativity, beginning 25 December. Still this is not an
absolute rule, and the sweeping statements sometimes made in
this matter are not to be trusted, for it is certain that in
some instances the years meant are ordinary years, beginning
with the first of January. (See Giry, "Manuel de diplomatique,"
pp. 126, 696, 700.) A similar want of uniformity is observed in
the dating of bulls though, speaking generally, from the middle
of the eleventh century to the end of the eighteenth, bulls are
dated by the years of the incarnation, counted from 25 March.
After the institution of briefs by Pope Eugenius IV, the use of
even lesser bulls, in the form of mandamenta, became notably
less frequent. Still, for many purposes, bulls continued to be
employed--for example in canonizations (in which case special
forms are observed, the pope by exception signing his own name,
under which is added a stamp imitating the rota as well as the
signatures of several cardinals), as also in the nomination of
bishops, promotion to certain benefices, some particular
marriage dispensations, etc. But the choice of the precise form
of instrument was often quite arbitrary. For example, in
granting the dispensation which enabled Henry VIII to marry his
brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, two forms of dispensation
were issued by Julius II, one a brief, seemingly expedited in
great haste, and the other a bull which was sent on afterwards.
Similarly we may notice that, while the English Catholic
hierarchy was restored in 1850 by a brief, Leo XIII in the first
year of his reign used a bull to establish the Catholic
episcopate of Scotland. So also the Society of Jesus, suppressed
by a brief in 1773, was restored by a bull in 1818. A very
interesting account of the formalities which had to be observed
in procuring bulls in Rome at the end of the fifteenth century
in contained in the "Practica" recently published by
Schmitz-Kalemberg.
VI. SIXTH PERIOD: SINCE 1878
Ever since the sixteenth century the briefs have been written in
a clear Roman hand upon a sheet of vellum of convenient size,
while even the wax with its guard of silk and the impression of
the fisherman's ring was replaced in 1842 by a stamp which
affixed the same devices in red ink. The bulls, on the other
hand, down to the death of Pope Pius IX retained many medieval
features apart from their great size, leaden seal, and Roman
fashion of dating. In particular, although from about 1050 to
the reformation the writing employed in the papal chancery did
not noticeably differ from the ordinary book-hand familiar
throughout Christendom, the engrossers of papal bulls, even
after the sixteenth century, went on using an archaic and very
artificial type of writing known as scrittura bollatica, with
manifold contractions and an absence of all punctuation, which
was practically undecipherable by ordinary readers. It was in
fact the custom in issuing a bull to accompany it with a
transsumption, or copy, in ordinary handwriting. This condition
of things was put an end to by a motu proprio issued by Leo XIII
shortly after his election. Bulls are now written in the same
clear Roman script that is used for briefs, and in view of the
difficulties arising from transmission by post, the old leaden
seal is replaced in many cases by a simple stamp bearing the
same device in red ink. In spite, however, of these
simplifications, and although the pontifical chancery is now as
an establishment much reduced in numbers, the conditions under
which bulls are prepared are still very intricate. There are
still four different "roads" which a bull may follow in its
making. The via di cancellaria, in which the document is
prepared by the abbreviatori of the chancery, is the ordinary
way but it is, and especially was, so beset with formalities and
consequential delays (see Schmitz-Kalemberg, Practica) that Paul
III instituted the via di camera (see APOSTOLIC CAMERA) to evade
them, in the hope of making the procedure more expeditious. But
if the process was more expeditious, it was not less costly, so
St. Pius V, in 1570, arranged for the gratuitous issue of
certain bulls by the via segreta; and to these was added, in
1735, the via di curia, intended to meet exceptional cases of
less formal and more personal interest. In the three former
processes, the Cardinal Vice-Chancellor, who is at the same time
"Sommista," is the functionary now theoretically responsible. In
the last case it is the Cardinal "Pro-Datario," and he is
assisted in this charge by the "Cardinal Secretary of Briefs."
As the mention of this last office suggests, the minutanti
employed in the preparation of briefs form a separate department
under the presidency of a Cardinal Secretary and a prelate his
substitute.
SPURIOUS BULLS
There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle
Ages papal and other documents were fabricated in a very
unscrupulous fashion. A considerable portion of the early
entries in chartularies of almost every class are not only open
to grave suspicion, but are often plainly spurious. It is
probable, however, that the motive for their forgeries was not
criminal. They were prompted by the desire of protecting
monastic property against tyrannical oppressors who, when title
deeds were lost or illegible, persecuted the holders and
extorted large sums as the price of charters of confirmation. No
doubt, less creditable motives--e.g., an ambitious desire to
exalt consideration of their own house--were also operative, and
while lax principles in this matter prevailed almost universally
it is often difficult to distinguish the purpose for which a
papal bull was forged. A famous early example of such forgery is
supplied by two papyrus bulls which profess to have been
addressed to the Abbey of St. Benignus at Dijon by Popes John V
(685) and Sergius I (697), and which were accepted as genuine by
Mabillion and his confrères. M. Delisle has, however, proved
they are fabrications made out of later bull addressed by John
XV in 995 to Abbot William, one side of which was blank. The
document was cut in half by the forger and furnished him with
sufficient papyrus for two not unsuccessful fabrications. Though
deceived in this one instance, Mabillion and his successors, Dom
Toustain and Dom Tassin, have supplied the most valuable
criteria by the aid of which to detect similar fabrications, and
their work has been ably carried on in modern times by scholars
like Jaffé, Wattenbach, Ewald, and many more. In particular a
new test has been furnished by the more careful study of the
cursus, or rhythmical cadence of sentences, which were most
carefully observed in the authentic bulls of the twelfth and
early thirteenth centuries. It would be impossible to go into
details here, but it may be said that M. Noæl Valois, who first
investigated the matter, seems to have touched upon the points
of primary importance. Apart from this, forged bulls are now
generally detected by blunders in the dating clauses and other
formalities. In the Middle Ages one of the principal tests of
the genuineness of bulls seems to have been supplied by counting
the number of points in the circular outline of the leaden seal
or in the figure of St. Peter depicted on it. The bullatores
apparently followed some definite rule in engraving their dies.
Finally, regarding these same seals, it may be noted that when a
bull was issued by a newly elected pope before his consecration,
only the heads of the Apostles were stamped on the bulla,
without the pope's name. These are called bullæ dimidiatæ. The
use of golden bullæ (bullæ aureæ), though adopted seemingly from
the thirteenth century (Giry, 634) for occasions of exceptional
solemnity, is too rare to call for special remark. One
noteworthy instance in which a golden seal was used was that of
the bull by which Leo X conferred upon King Henry VIII the title
of Fidei Defensor.
Ortolan in Dict. de theol, cath., II, 1255-63--see remark, page
49, col. 2; Grisar in Kirkenlex, II, 1482-95; Giry, Manuel de
diplomatique (Paris, 1894), 661-704--an excellent summary of the
whole subject; Pflugk-Harttung, Die Bullen der Papste (Gotha,
1901)--mainly concerned with the period before Innocent III;
Melampo in Miscellanea di Storia e Cultura Ecclesiastica
(1905-07), a valuable series of articles not too technical in
character, by a Custodian of the Vatican Archives; Mas-Latrie,
Les élementes de diplomatique pontificale in Revue des questions
historiques (Paris, 1886-87), XXXIX and XLI; De Kamp, Zum
papstlichen Urkundenvessen in Mittheilungen des Inst. f.
Oesterr. Geschictesforschung (Vienna, 1882-83), III and IV, and
in Historiches Jahrbuch, 1883, 1883, IV; Delisle, Des régitres
d'Innocent III in Biblioth=8Fque de l'écoles des chartres
(Paris, 1853-54), with many other articles; Bresslau, Handbuch
der Urkundenlehre (Leipzig, 1889), I, 120-258; De Rossi, Preface
to Codices Palatini Latin Bib. Vat. (Rome, 1886); Berger,
preface to Les régistres d'Innocent IV (Paris, 1884); Kehr and
Brockman, Papsturkunden in various numbers of the G=9Attinger
Nachrichten (Phil. Hist. Cl., 1902-04); Kehr, Scrinium und
Palatium in the Austrian Mittheilungen, Ergènzungaband, VI;
Pitra, Analecta Novissima Solesmensia (Tusculum, 1885), I;
Schmitz-Kahlemberg, Practica (1904). Among earlier works mention
may be made of Mabillion, De Re Diplomatica (Paris, 1709), and
the Nouveau traité de diplomatique by the Benedictines of
Saint-Maur (Paris, 1765, VI volumes).
Early Bulls--Bresslau, Papyrus und Pergament in der papstlichen
Kanzlei in the Mittheilungen der Instituts f=9Fr Oest.
Geschictsforschung (Innsbruck, 1888), IX; Omont, Bulles
pontificales sur papyrus in Bibl. les l'école des chartes
(Paris, 1904), XLV; Ewald, Zur Diplomatik Silvesters II in Neues
Archiv (Hanover, 1884), IX; Kehr, Scrinium und Palatium in the
Austrian Mittheilungen, Ergènzungaband, (Innsbruck, 1901) VI;
Kehe, Verschollene Papyrusbullen in Quellen und Forschungen aus
italienischen Archiven (Rome, 1907), X, 216-224; Rodolico, Note
paleografiche e diplomatiche (Bologna, 1900).
For facsimiles both of early bulls and their seals, the great
collection of Pflugk-Harttung, Specimena Selecta Chartarum
Pontificum Romanorum (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1887) is of primary
importance but isolated facsimiles are to be found elsewhere.
On the cursus it will be sufficient to mention the article of
Noæl Valois, Etudes sur le rythme des bulles pontificales in
Bibl de l'école des chartes (1881), XLII, and De Santi, Il
Cursus nella storia litter. e nella liturgia (Rome, 1903).
HERBERT THURSTON
Sir Richard Bulstrode
Sir Richard Bulstrode
A soldier, diplomatist, and author, born 1610; died 1711, was
the second son of Edward Bulstrode by Margaret, daughter of
Richard Ashtey, chamberlain of the queen's household and member
of the Inner Temple. He was educated at Pembroke College,
Cambridge, and while at the university was the author of a poem
on the birth of the Duke of York. At twenty-three years of age
he entered the Inner Temple and in 1649, at his father's request
and through his interest, was made a bencher. During the Civil
War he was loyal to the king, serving in the Prince of Wales's
regiment and holding at times the post of adjutant. He was later
promoted to the rank of Adjutant-General of Horse, and still
later to be Quartermaster-General. He was appointed to take
charge of the funeral of Lord Strafford and became responsible
for the expenses attending it; on being pressed by his creditors
he fled to Bruges. He subsequently underwent a short term of
imprisonment, which was terminated by the payment of the debt by
Charles II. On his return he was appointed auditor of a Scotch
regiment then serving in the Netherlands and in 1673 was
appointed agent at the court of Bruges. He was temporarily
recalled two years later, and on 1675 was knighted and again
sent to Brussels, this time as resident, where he remained until
the accession of James II when he was made envoy. When the
revolution of 1688 compelled James to leave England, Bulstrode
accompanied him to the court of Saint-Germain, where he remained
until his death. Among his writings are: "Original Letters
written to Earl of Arlinton, with an account of the Author's
Life and Family", "Life of James II", "Memoirs and Reflections
on the Reign and Government of Charles I and Charles II" and a
large number of elegies and epigrams.
THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFEE
Joannes Bunderius
Joannes Bunderius
(VAN DEN BUNDERE).
A Flemish theologian and controversialist, born of distinguished
parents at Ghent in 1482; died there 8 January, 1557. He entered
the Dominican Order in his native city about 1500, and after
having made his religious profession was sent to Louvain to
pursue his studies in philosophy and theology. He obtained the
degree of Lector in Sacred Theology, and in 1517 returned to
Ghent, where, until near the close of his life, he taught
philosophy and theology. While occupied in teaching he filled
the office of prior of the convent of Ghent three times
(1529-35; 1550-53), and discharged the duties of General
Inquisitor of the Diocese of Tournai. As inquisitor he was
untiring in his efforts to check the spread of the errors that
were being disseminated by Lutherans, Calvinists, and
Mennonites; but always used prudence in his dealings with
heretics. Long training in the schools and the experience he had
gained as the professor of theology fitted him especially well
to explain and defend Catholic doctrine, and to detect and
expose the errors of heretical teaching. While prior of the
convent of Ghent for the first time, he formed a federation of
religious orders in that city for the safeguarding of the faith
of the people and of the preservation of the rights of the
Church and the privileges of the orders. In recognition of his
ability as a preacher and as a reward for his long labours in
the pulpit a general chapter of his order conferred upon him the
degree of Preacher General. Of his writings, which are nearly
all of a polemical character, the most worthy of note are:
+ "Compendium dissidii quorundam hereticorum" (Paris, 1540-43,
1545);
+ "Compendium concertationis hujus saeculi sapientium et
theologorum" (Paris, 1549, Venice, 1553, etc). After the
author's death, this work was frequently published under the
title: "Compendium rerum theologarum, quae hodie in
controversia agitantur";
+ "Detectio nugarum Lutheri cum declaratione veritatis
Catholicae (Louvain, 1551);
+ "De Vero Christi baptismo contra Mennonem Anabaptistarum
principe" (Louvain, 1553).
A.L. McMAHON
Michelangelo Buonarroti
Michelangelo Buonarroti
Italian sculptor, painter, and architect, b. at Caprese in the
valley of the upper Arno, 6 March, 1475; d. at Rome, 18
February, 1564. Michelangelo, one of the greatest artists of all
times, came from a noble Florentine family of small means, and
in 1488 was apprenticed to Domenico Ghirlandajo. While
apprentice, he excited the admiration of his master by the
life-like animation of this drawings, and upon Ghirlandajo's
recommendation, and a the wish of Lorenzo the Magnificent, he
received further training (1489-92) in the palace of the Medici,
at the school of sculpture then under the direction of Bertoldo,
one of Donatello's pupils. As student and resident of the
palace, Michelangelo lived with Lorenzo's sons in the most
distinguished society of Florence, and at this time was
introduced by the poet Politian into the circle of the scholars
of the Academy and to their learned pursuits. Meanwhile,
Michelangelo was studying with marked success the frescoes in
the Branacci chapel. After Lorenzo's death he passed his time
partly at home, partly at the monastery of Santo Spirito, where
he busied himself with anatomical studies, and partly in the
house of Pietro de' Medici, who, however, was banished in 1494.
About the same time Michelangelo left Florence for Bologna. He
returned in 1495, and began to work as a sculptor, taking as his
model the works of his predecessors and the masterpieces of
classical antiquity, without, however, sacrificing his
individuality. In 1496 he went to Rome, whither his fame had
preceded him, and remained there working as a sculptor until
1501. Returning to Florence, he occupied himself with his
painting and sculpture until 1505, when Pope Julius II called
him to enter his service. After this, Michelangelo was employed
alternately in Rome and Florence by Julius and his successors,
Leo X, Clement VII, and Paul III being his special patrons. In
1534, shortly after the death of his father, Michelangelo left
Florence never to return. The further events of his life are
closely connected with his artistic labours. Some weeks after
his death his body was brought back to Florence and a few months
later a stately memorial service was held in the church of San
Lorenzo. His nephew, Leonardo Buonarroti, erected a monument
over his tomb in Santa Croce, for which Vasari, his well known
pupil and biographer, furnished the design, and Duke Cosimo de'
Medici the marble. The three arts are represented as mourning
over the sarcophagus, above which is a niche containing a bust
of Michelangelo. A monument was erected in his memory in the
church of the Santi Apostoli, at Rome, representing him as an
artist in working garb, with an inscription: Tanto nomini nullum
par elogium. (No praise is sufficient for so great a man.)
Michelangelo was a man of many-sided character, independent and
persistent in his views and his endeavours. His most striking
characteristic was a sturdy determination, guided by a lofty
ideal. Untiring, he worked until far advanced in years, at the
cost of great personal sacrifices. He was not, however,
unyielding to the point of obstinancy. His productions in all
departments of art show the great fertility of his mind. In
literature he was a devoted student and admirer of Dante. A copy
of the "Divine Comedy", ornamented by him with marginal
drawings, has unfortunately been lost. Imitating the style of
Dante and Petrarch, he wrote verses, "canzoni", and especially
sonnets, which are not without value, and excite surprise by
their warmth of feeling. Some of his poems give expression to an
ideally pure affection. He never married. A stern earnestness is
characteristic of the sculptor, but the tenderness of his heart
is shown in his touching love and solicitude for his father and
brothers. Although seemingly absorbed in his art, and often
straitened in circumstances, he was ever ready to aid them by
word and deed. "I will send you what you demand of me", he
wrote, "even if I have to sell myself as a slave". After the
death of his father he conceived a deep affection for a young
Roman, Tommaso de' Cavalieri, and also entered into intimate
friendship with the noble-minded poetess, Vittoria Colonna, then
past her youth. With his pupils, Vasari and Condivi, he was on
the most cordial terms, and a servant who was twenty-six years
in his employ experienced his bounty. The biographies we have
from the pupils just mentiond and the letters of Michelangelo
himself testify to the gentler traits of his character. He gave
younger artists generous aid by suggestions, sketches, and
designs, among others to Sebastiano del Poimbo, Daniele da
Volterra, and Jacopo da Pontormo. Michelangelo had few personal
wants and was unusually self-denying in dress and diet.
Savonarola's sermons, which he recalled even in his old age,
probably influenced him in some degree to adopt this austerity
of life. Moreover, the seriousness of his own mind caused him to
realize the vanity of earthly ideals. His spirit was always
absorbed in a struggle to attain perfection. Yet with all this
he was not haughty; many of his sayings that have come down to
us show him to have been unusually unassuming. The explanation
of his unwillingness to have the aid of assistants must be
sought in the peculiarity of his artistic methods.
Michelangelo's life was one of incessant trials, yet in spite of
an imperious temper and many bodily infirmities he showed
remarkable composure and forbearance. No matter how much trouble
was caused him by his distinguished patrons he seldom failed in
loyalty to them. He was equally faithful to his native city,
Florence, although the political confusion which reigned there
wrung from him many complaints. It obliged him to spend half of
his life elsewhere, yet he wished to lie after death in
Florentine earth; nor could the most enticing offers induce him
to leave Italy. A contemporary bestows praise which seems
merited, when he says that Michelangelo in all the ninety years
of his life never gave any grounds for suspecting the integrity
of his moral virtue.
SCULPTURE
First Period
If the years before 1505, that is, before the summons by Julius
II, be taken as Michelangelo's youth, it may be said that, even
when a pupil in Bertoldo's school, he attracted attention not
only by his work in clay and by the head of a faun in marble
after a classical model, but especially by two marble
bas-reliefs of his own design. The "Madonna Seated on a Step",
pressing the Child to her breast under her mantle, shows, it is
true, but little individuality, grace, and tenderness, though
perhaps for this very reason all the more dignity.
Michelangelo's later style is more easily recognized in the
"Battle of the Centaurs", which represents a large group of
figures, anatomically well drawn, engaged in a passionate
struggle. It is said that in after years the artist, in
referring to this group, expressed regret that he had not
devoted himself exclusively to sculpture. He appears to have
taken the conception for this work from a bronze relief of
Bertoldo and to have imitated the style of Donatello.
Michelangelo's work certainly recalls Donatello in the drapery
of the Madonna above mentioned and in the realistic way in which
the sentiment of this composition is expressed. After Lorenzo's
death Michelangelo produced a marble Hercules of heroic size
that was taken to Fontainebleau and has since disappeared.
Thode, however, appears to have found the Crucifix which
Michelangelo carved for the church of Santo Spirito. The body in
this is almost entirely free from the cross; there is no intense
pain expressed on the youthful face, and the hands and hair are
not completely worked out. The "St. John in the Wilderness",
with the honeycomb, now at Berlin, is probably the San
Giovannino that Michelangelo executed in Florence in 1495. The
realistic modelling of the head and the beautiful lines of the
body show a study of both classic and modern models. Shortly
after this Michelangelo completed several figures for the shrine
of St. Dominic which Niccolo dell' Arca had left unfinished. A
figure of a pagan deity was the occasion of Michelangelo's first
visit to Rome, and a statue of Bacchus carved by him on that
occasion is extant at Florence. This work, which is the result
of study of the antique, is merely a beautiful and somewhat
intoxicated youth.
Far more important is the Pieta executed in 1499 for the French
chapel in St. Peter's. A calm, peaceful expression of grief
rests on all the figures of the group. The face of the mother
has youthful beauty; the head is bowed but slightly, yet
expressive of holy sorrow. Her drapery lies in magnificent folds
under the body of the Saviour. The latter is not yet stiff and
reveals but slight traces of the suffering endured, especially
the noble countenance so full of Divine peace. Not the lips but
the hand shows the intensity of the grief into which the
mother's soul is plunged. When sixty years old Michelangelo
desired to execute a Pieta, or, more properly, a "Lamentation of
Christ" for his own tomb. The unfinished group is now in the
Cathedral of Florence, and is throughout less ideally conceived
than the Pieta just mentioned. The body of Christ is too limp,
and Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen are somewhat hard in modelling.
This Pieta was broken into pieces by the master, but was
afterwards put together by other hands. Two circular reliefs of
the "Virgin and Child", one now in London and one in Florence,
belong to the sculptor's youthful period. In the Florentine
relief, especially, intensity of feeling is combined with a
graceful charm. Mother and Child are evidently pondering a
passage in Scripture which fills them with sorrow; the arms and
head of the Boy rest on the book. A life-sized group of about
the same date in the church of Our Lady (Eglise Notre-Dame) at
Bruges shows the Madonna again, full of dignity and with lofty
seriousness of mien, while the Child, somewhat larger than the
one just mentioned, is absorbed in intense thought. In contrast
to Raphael, Michelangelo sought to express Divine greatness and
exalted grief rather than human charm. He worked entirely
according to his own ideals. His creations recall classical
antiquity by a certain coldness, as well as by the strain of
superhuman power that characterizes them.
Second Period
To Michelangelo's second creative period (beginning 1505)
belongs the statue of Christ which he carved for the church of
Santa Maria sopra Minerva. It was sent to Rome in 1521 in charge
of an assistant who was to add some last touches to the statue
when it was put in position. The Saviour, a life-sized marble
figure, holds the cross, sponge, and rod of hyssop. The face,
earnest, almost hard, is turned to the left, as if saying: "My
people, what have ye done to Me?" Properly however, the figure
is not that of the suffering Saviour, but of the risen Saviour
and therefore nude, according to the desire of the patron who
have the commission. The age of the Renaissance, in its ardour
for the nude, paid no regard to decorum. At a later date a
bronze loin cloth, unfortunately too long, was placed on the
statue. In conformity with the spirit in which the whole
composition is conceived, the figure of Christ is not stiff and
severe like the statue of an antique god, but expresses a
resigned humanity. A youthful Apollo produced at about the same
time has also little of the classic in its design. A dying
Adonis comes nearer to classic models in its conception. But the
gigantic David, the embodiment of fresh young daring, in reality
a representation of a noble boy, resembles an antique god or
hero. It can hardly be said that the colossal size, over twelve
and a half feet, is suitable for a youth; however, the deed for
which David is preparing, or more probably, the action which he
has just completed, is a deed of courage. The right hand is half
closed, the left hand with the sling seems to be going back to
the shoulder, while the gaze follows the stone. The figure
resembles that of an ancient athlete. The body is nude, and the
full beauty of the lines of the human form is strikingly brought
out. In 1508 Michelangelo agreed to carve the twelve Apostles in
heroic size (about nine and a half feet high) for the church of
Santa Maria del Fiore, but of the whole number only the figure
of St. Matthew, a great and daring design, was hewn in the
rough. Similarly, he executed but four of the saints which were
to decorate the memorial chapel to Pius II and left the rest of
the work unfinished. A bronze statue of David with the head of
Goliath under his feet was sent to France and has since
disappeared. A pen-and-ink sketch of this statue is still in the
Louvre.
His powers fully matured, Michelangelo now entered the service
of the popes and was entrusted with the carrying out of two
great undertakings. In 1505 Julius II called him to Rome to
design and erect for the pope a stately sepulchral monument. The
monument was to be a four-sided marble structure in two curses,
decorated with some forty figures of heroic size. Michelangelo
spent eight months in Carrara superintending the sending of the
marble to Rome. He hoped in carrying out this commission to
execute a work worthy of classic times, one containing figures
that would bear comparison with the then newly discovered
Lacoon. His plans, however, were brought to nought by a sudden
change of mind on the part of Julius, who now began to consider
the rebuilding of St. Peter's after the designs of Bramante.
Julius may be said to have driven Michelangelo from the Roman
court. Fearful of the malice of enemies, Buonarroti fled in
despair to Florence and, turning a deaf ear to the pope's
entreaties to return to Rome, offered to go on with the work for
the monument at Florence. To this, however, Julius would not
listen. In his exasperation Michelangelo was on the point of
going to Constantinople. However, at the invitation of the pope,
in the latter part of 1506, he went to Bologna, where, amid the
greatest difficulties and in straitened circumstances, he cast a
bronze statue of Julius II, of heroic size. This effigy was
destroyed during a revolt against Julius in 1511. Once more in
Rome, he was obliged for the time being to abandon the scheme
for the monument to Julius and, against his will, to decorate
the Sistine Chapel with frescoes. Julius II lived only long
enough after the completion of the frescoes to arrange for his
monument in his will. After his death in 1513 a formal contract
was made for the construction of the memorial. According to this
new agreement the monument was no longer to be an independent
structure, but was to be placed against the church wall in the
form of a chapel. The plan for the structure was even more
magnificent than the original design, but was in the end
abandoned, both on account of its size and of other
circumstances which arose. The new pope, Leo X, of the Medici
family, was a friend of Michelangelo's youth and looked on him
with much favour, but had new designs in reference to him. After
Michelangelo had laboured for two years on the monument to
Julius, Pope Leo, during a visit to Florence, commanded him, to
construct a stately new facade for the church of San Lorenzo,
the family burial place of the Medici. With tears in his eyes,
Michelangelo agreed to this interruption of his great design.
The building of the new facade was abandoned in 1520, but the
sculptor returned to his former work for a time only. The short
reign of Adrian VI was followed by the election to the papal
throne of another early friend of Michelangelo, Giulio de'
Medici, who took the name of Clement VII. Since 1520 Giulio de'
Medici had desired to erect a family mortuary chapel in San
Lorenzo. When be became pope he obliged Michelangelo to take up
this task. The new commission was not unworthy of the sculptor's
powers, yet an evil fate prevented this undertaking also from
reaching its full completion. Michelangelo suffered unspeakably
from the constant alteration of his plans; he was, moreover,
beset by many detractors; the political disorders in his native
city filled him with grief, and the years brought with them
constantly increasing infirmities.
In 1545 the designs, some of which still exist, for the monument
of Julius II were carried out on a much reduced scale. The
monument is in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli; in the
centre of the lower course of the monument between two smaller
figures is placed the gigantic statue of Moses, which was
originally intended for the upper course, where it would have
made a much more powerful impression. When seen close by, the
criticism may be made that the expression is too violent, there
is no sufficient reason for the swollen veins in the left arm,
the shoulders are too massive in comparison with the neck, the
chin, and the forehead; that even the folds of the robe are
unnatural. Yet, seen from a distance, it is precisely these
features that produce the desired effect. The great statue,
which is double life size, was intended to express the painfully
restrained and mighty wrath of the leader of a stiff-necked
people. It is plain that an allusion to the warlike prowess of
Julius II was intended and that the sculptor here, as in many of
his other undertakings, has embodied his own tremendous
conception of force. The way in which the Tables of the Law are
grasped, the bare arm and right knee, the heavy beard and the
"horns" heighten the effect that is aimed at. The flanking
figures of Rachel and Leah, symbols respectively of
contemplative and active life, were carved by Michelangelo
himself, but they are not as satisfactory as the Moses. The
monument itself and the figures on the upper course were not
executed by the great master, though they were worked out
according to his suggestions. On the other hand, two shackled
figures out of the series planned by the sculptor are in the
Louvre, though incomplete. The "Slaves" were intended to typify
the power of the pope in the domains of war and art, and were to
stand in front of the hermae pillars, where the inverted
consoles now are. In the "Slaves" in the Louvre the antithesis
between resistance to the fetters and submission to the
inevitable is expressed with remarkable skill. There are also in
Florence some unfinished figures belonging to this monument,
namely a victor kneeling on a fallen foe, and four other
figures, which are merely blocked out. About the time of the
completion of this monument Michelangelo carved a striking bust
of Brutus as the hero of liberty. Michelangelo regarded the
freedom of his native city as lost after the second return of
the Medici from exile and the assumption of the control of
affairs by Alessandro and Cosmo de' Medici. The sorrow this
caused him suggested the bust of Brutus, and cast a shadow on
the tombs of Giuliano and Lorenzo de' Medici in the chapel
spoken of above. The greater part of the work in the chapel,
however, had been done before this time, and so the expression
of embittered sorrow must be explained by the general depression
of the artist not less than by his failure to realize his
highest ideal, which also accounts for the gloom characteristic
of his other creations.
Twelve figures included in the original design for the
sepulchral monument of the Medici were never carved. According
to Vasari's arrangement in 1563, a seated figure of Giuliano is
placed in an upper niche of one of the monuments, while
symbolical figures representing Day and Night recline on a
sarcophagus below. If Michelangelo's words have been rightly
understood, these symbolical figures are to be regarded as
mourning for the untimely death of the duke, and as grieving
that life for him had not been worth the living. "Not to see,
nor to hear must be happiness for me", are the words attributed
to Night, which is represented as a giantess sunk in heavy and
uneasy slumber, and symbolized by a mask, an owl, and a bunch of
poppy-heads. The other allegorical figure, Day, a man, is
represented as having no desire to rouse himself to action. The
plan of the second monument is similar to that of the one just
described; the figures of Evening and Dawn make the same
impression as those of Night and Day. The two Medicean dukes are
ideally treated as ancient warriors, rather than portrayed as in
life. In the statue of Giuliano it is the superb modelling of
the different parts that delights the eye; in the statue of
Lorenzo the charm lies in the pose and the way in which the face
is shadowed by the helmet. This figure of Lorenzo bears the name
of Il Penseroso (the Meditative). Against the wall of the chapel
stands the unfinished and really unsuccessful Madonna and Child;
the pose of the Madonna is unique.
PAINTINGS
Michelangelo once said that he was no painter; on another
occasion he declared he was no architect, but in reality he was
both. About 1503 he painted a Holy Family, now in Florence in
which the Madonna holds the Child over her shoulder to St.
Joseph who stands behind. In this canvas Michelangelo departs
from the traditional representation of the Holy Family, by the
quaint grouping of nude figures in the background even more than
by the entirely new pose of the Mother and Child. An "Entombment
of Christ:, now in London, is unfinished. Like Leonardo da
Vinci, the greatest painter of that period, Michelangelo made a
large number of sketches. He also entered into competition with
that famous artist by undertaking (1504) a battle-piece which
was to adorn the wall opposite Leonardo's "Battle of Anghiari"
in the great council chamber of the palace of the Signory,
called the Palazzo del Priori, and now the Town-hall of
Florence. As Michelangelo just at this date entered the service
of the popes, the cartoon he prepared was never carried out and
is now lost. After years of disagreement with Julius II the
painting of the Sistine Chapel was begun in 1508, and in 1512
the ceiling was uncovered. Michelangelo, who was not a
fesco-painter, exerted all his powers of mind and body,
abandoning his preference for the effects of sculpture in order
to express without assistance and in defiance of the envious,
the full ideal of his conceptions in this unwonted medium.
Creation, the Fall, and the preparation for the coming of the
Redeemer form the subject of the fresco. The painter first
divided and enclosed the ceiling with painted architecture which
formed a fame for the frescoes; the cornice for this frame on
the broad side of the chapel is adorned with the figures of
naked youths. The nine fields of the smooth vault contain the
history of the sinful human race as far as Noe. Around the dome,
between the lunettes, are vaulted triangular spaces or
pendentives; in these are placed prophets and sibyls, together
with boy-angels, all pointing to the approaching redemption. In
the lunettes over the windows and in the vaulted triangular
spaces over the lunettes are represented the ancestors of
Christ. The subject, arrangement, and technical excellence of
these frescoes have always excited the greatest admiration. The
Divine, the prophetic, and the human are here most happily
expressed; the conception of the first is original; the prophets
and sibyls have wonderful individuality, and great skill is
shown in handling the drapery, while human beings are
represented in animated action. The architect created the
beautiful division of the space and the exact proportions, the
sculptor produced the anatomically correct figures, and the
painter knew how to blend forms and colours into perfect
harmony. After the completion of the work Michelangelo could no
longer regret that it had been forced upon him against his will.
Equally famous is the great fresco of the "Last Judgment" which
he painted upon the altar-wall of the chapel (1535-41). In this
fresco, however, the nudity of the figures aroused objection,
and they have been painted over by various hands. The "Last
Judgment" has been more blackened and disfigured by time than
the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
ARCHITECTURE
The commission given by Leo X for the rebuilding of the facade
of the church of San Lorenzo, which has been already mentioned,
ended in a bitter disappointment for Michelangelo. He produced
very rapidly a fine design for the front and made the first
preparations for the work. After four years (in 1520) the
contract was rescinded without anything having been
accomplished. However, the commission that Michelangelo received
from Giulio de' Medidi, afterwards Clement VII, for a mortuary
chapel for the Medici family was not revoked, and the chapel was
completed in 1524. It is a simple building surmounted by a dome.
Its only purpose is to hold the monuments. Michelangelos design
for the enlargement of San Giovanni de' Fiorentini at Rome was
never used. He also produced designs for the Piazza of the
Campidoglio (Capitol) and the Porta Pia. It is a remarkable fact
that the citizens of Florence in 1529 appointed him
engineer-in-chief of the fortifications of the city. Of more
importance was his appointment as chief architect for the
reconstruction of St. Peter's by Pope Paul III, after the death
of Sangallo (1546). He held this position seventeen years.
Michelangelo carried out, with some changes, Bramante's plans
for the new building and rejected those of Sangallo. His own
work is notably the magnificent dome. He completed the drum, but
not, however the upper dome. The clay model made by his own
hands is still to be seen at the Vatican.
Death brought to an end a life filled with fame and success, but
also replete with suffering and sorrow; a life on which a great
genius made demands which could not be satisfied. The ambitions
of Michelangelo were insatiable, not so much owing to his desire
for renown, as to his almost gigantic striving after the
absolute ideal of art. For this reason Michelangelo's creations
bear the stamp of his subjectivity and of his restless efforts
to attain the loftiest ideals by new methods. He accomplished
much that was extraordinary in three or four departments of art,
but at the same time broke through many limitations prescribed
by the laws of beauty in all arts, wilfully disregarding, at
times, in his modelling of the human figure, even that fidelity
to nature which he esteemed so highly. The way he pointed was
dangerous, inasmuch as it led directly to extravagance, which,
though perhaps endurable in Michelangelo obscured even the fame
of Raphael; he swayed not only his own age, but succeeding
generations.
Monographs by SUTHERLAND-GOWER, HOLYROD, STRUTT (London, 1903);
THODE, "Michelangelo und das Ende der Renaissance" (1903, 1904);
ROLLAND, "Michelange" (1905).
G. GIETMANN
Burchard of Basle
Burchard of Basle
(Also of HASENBURG or ASUEL, from his ancestral castle in
Western Berne, Switzerland).
Bishop of Basle in the eleventh century and a warm partisan of
Henry IV (1056-1106). He belonged to the family of the counts of
Neuenburg, or Neuchatel, was b. towards the middle of the
eleventh century, and d. 12 April, 1107. Having entered the
ecclesiastical state he was made Bishop of Basle (1072) by Henry
IV; in recognition of this favour he was ever loyal to the king,
and became one of his foremost advisers. In Henry's first
difficulties with the Saxons (1073-75) Burchard rendered him all
possible assistance. When the conflict between the king and Pope
Gregory VII (1073-85) broke out, Burchard was among the bishops
who assembled at Worms (January, 1076), proclaimed the
deposition of the pope, and wrote him an insulting letter.
Together with Bishop Huzmann of Speyer he also went to Northern
Italy for the purpose of inducing the Lombard bishops to take
similar action with regard to the pope. In this he was
successful; a synod was assembled at Piacenza, and the Lombard
bishops renounced obedience to Gregory. For these rebellious
acts Burchard was excommunicated and deposed by the pope in the
Lenten synod of 1076; a similar sentence was inflicted on other
bishops and on Burchard's royal master. King Henry obtained
absolution at Canossa in January, 1077; and Burchard, who
accompanied him on the penitential pilgrimage, was reinstated in
office.
During the civil war in 1077 and the following years, between
Henry and his rival, Duke Rudolf of Suabia, raised to the throne
by many princes, Burchard stood on the side of Henry, in whose
interest he fought repeatedly, both against Rudolf and his
supporter, Berthold of Zahringen. In 1078 Burchard and his
friend suffered a crushing defeat, and he barely saved his life
by precipitate flight. But the fortunes of war turned; Burchard
and his partisans ravaged the country of Alemannia, or Suabia,
the home of Rudolf and Berthold, and many cruelties were
committed. Churches, sanctuaries, and perhaps monasteries as
well were destroyed by the reckless and savage soldiery. But it
all helped the cause of Henry and weakened that of his rival,
who was finally vanquished and killed in 1080. Burchard was
rewarded for his services with grants of land from Henry. It is
not certain that he was present in the synod held at Brixen
(Tyrol) in June, 1080, where the partisans of Henry again
deposed Gregory VII and elected in his stead Wibert, Archbishop
of Ravenna. He was with Henry, however, when the schismatic king
took possession of Rome, 21 March, 1084, and it may be taken for
granted that he assisted at the installation of the antipope
Clement III (1084-1100) and at the imperial coronation of Henry,
which events occurred on the 24th and 31st of March
respectively. Shortly afterwards Burchard returned to Germany
with his royal master.
Two synods were held there during the year 1085, in which
Burchard, though not present, was directly concerned. The first,
in the latter part of April, was held at Quedlinburg by the
partisans of Gregory VII; it condemned all adversaries of the
pope, including Bishop Burchard. Henry's faction held its synod
at Mainz in the early part of May; Pope Gregory and all the
bishops loyal to him were deposed. For the next twenty years
Burchard was less active in the cause of Henry, but he remained
to the end loyal to his king. When Henry was hard pressed in
Italy by his son Conrad, in rebellion since 1093, and other
enemies, Burchard was one of the very few bishops of Germany,
who brought him any comfort. In 1095 he appeared at the king's
court at Padua, and after Henry's return to Germany he paid
several other visits to the royal court. How much Henry counted
on the loyalty of Burchard was made evident in a letter which
the monarch wrote to the princes of the empire from Liege in the
early part of the year 1106, shortly before his death. Henry
besought the princes to accord him sufficient time to consult
with the princes and bishops about the matters relating to his
abdication or reconciliation with his rebellious son Henry V
(1106-25), and among the bishops faithful to him he mentioned
the name of Burchard of Basle.
Burchard, however, did not always remain an uncompromising
adversary of the popes. After the death of Gregory VII,
particularly after the election of Urban II (1088-99), his
sentiments underwent a change. He sought a reconciliation with
the Holy See; and in order to prove his interest in purely
ecclesiastical and spiritual matters he became instrumental in
the erection of several monasteries or other religious
institutions. Among those founded by him may be mentioned the
monastery of St. Alban in Basle, and chapterhouse of Grandis
Vallis to the south of Basle, and the monastery of St. John,
erected partly by his brother and partly by himself at Erlach in
the neighbourhood of his ancestral castle. In spite of his
attachment to Henry IV he died fully reconciled with the pope.
TROUILLAT, Monuments de l'histoire de l'ancien eveche de Bale
(Porrentruy, 1852); BLOSCH, Zwei bernische Bischofe in Berner
Taschenbuch (Bern, 1881); GIESEBRECHT, Gesch. der deutschen
Kaiserzeit (Leipzig, 1890), III; FIALA in Kirschenlex., II,
1514-19.
FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER
Burchard of Worms
Burchard of Worms
Bishop of that see, b. of noble parents in Hesse, Germany, after
the middle of the tenth century; d. 20 August, 1025. He received
his education in Coblenz and other places, and ultimately
entered the service of Archbishop Willigis of Mainz (975-1011),
by whom he was ordained deacon. He rose gradually in
ecclesiastical rank and was finally appointed by Willigis first
chamberlain, and primate or judge of the city. In these offices
he showed so much discretion and impartiality, that his
reputation reached Emperor Otto III. During a personal interview
with his imperial master (1000) he was appointed to the vacant
Bishopric of Worms; a few days later he was advanced to the
priesthood and the episcopal dignity by Willigis at
Heiligenstadt. Thenceforth he laboured unceasingly for the
temporal and spiritual welfare of his subjects. He rebuilt the
walls of Worms and with the approval of Henry II tore down the
stronghold of a certain Duke Otto, which served as a place of
refuge to criminals and malefactors. Between 1023 and 1025 he
promulgated a celebrated body of laws, the "Leges et Statuta
familiae S. Petri Wormatiensis", with the purpose of insuring
the impartial administration of justice. (Boos, in Urkundenbuch
der Stadt Worms, I, 1886; Weiland, in Mon. Ger. Hist.: Leges,
IV, 1.) Many monasteries and churches were erected by him. On
the site of the aforesaid Otto's castle he built a monastery in
honour of St. Paul; his sister Mathilda was placed in charge of
a community of religious women, whose home was practically
rebuilt; the cathedral of St. Peter at Worms was reconstructed
and dedicated in 1016. He also devoted himself to the formation
of ecclesiastical students in his cathedral school and to the
instruction of ecclesiastics generally. To stimulate their zeal
he would at times answer difficult questions submitted to him.
The prevalent evils he tried to reform through visitations and
synods.
For the sake of uniformity in all church matters he drew up a
manual for the instruction and guidance of young ecclesiastics,
this is his well-known "Collectarium canonum" or "Decretum" in
twenty books, a compilation of ecclesiastical law and moral
theology, drawn from previous similar collections, the
penitential books, the writings of the Fathers, the decrees of
councils and popes, and the Sacred Scriptures. For more than a
century, until the publication of the "Decretum" of Gratian (c.
1150), this was a widely used practical guide of the clergy,
often quoted as "Brocardus". The nineteenth book, known as
"Corrector, seu medicus", was circulated frequently as a
separate work and was esteemed as a practical confessor's guide.
(Von Scherer, Kirchenrecht, I, 238.) The work was undertaken at
the suggestion of Brunicho, the provost of the Worms Cathedral,
and was executed with the help of Bishop Walter of Speyer and
Abbot Olbert of Gembloux (ed. Foucher, Paris, 1549; Migne, P.L.,
CXL, Paris, 1853). Burchard enjoyed the special esteem of his
imperial masters. With Otto III he was on the most intimate
terms; Henry II and Conrad II made visits to him in 1009 and
1025 respectively. Personally Burchard was a saintly man. His
biographer, probably an ecclesiastic, praises his devotion to
prayer, his mortification, his fairness and charity towards
others.
Vita Burchardi Episcopi in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., IV; also
in P.L. (Paris, 1853), CXL; GROSCH, Burchard I Bischof zu Worms
(Jena, 1890); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1896),
III; VON SCHERER in Kirchenlex., II; HAUCK in HERZOG, Realencyc.
(Leipzig, 1897); GIETL, Hist. Jahrb. (1895), XVI, 116-119;
WATTENBACH, Deutschl. Geschichtsquellen (6th ed., 1893), I, 392;
CONRAT, Gesch. d. Quellen des rom. Rechts im M. A., 1, 261.
FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER
St. Burchard of Wurzburg
St. Burchard of Würzurg
First bishop of Würzurg, b. in England of Anglo-Saxon parents,
date unknown; d. in Germany most probably in 754. After the
death of his father and mother he left home to go as a
missionary to Germany, being drawn to this life by the great
reputation of his countryman, St. Boniface, to whom he offered
himself as an assistant. As Boniface was at this time an
archbishop it must have been after the year 732 that Burchard
began missionary work on German soil. He soon showed himself a
competent and zealous messenger of the Faith and was consecrated
Bishop of the new See of Würzurg by St. Boniface when the latter
erected the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the mission territory of
Thuringia. The date is probably 741, for on 22 October, 741,
Burchard and Witta of Buraburg took part as bishops in the
consecration of St. Willibald as Bishop of Eichstatt. In a
letter to St. Boniface, 1 April, 743, Pope Zachary confirmed the
founding of the new diocese. But a year before this (April, 742)
Burchard had been a member of the first German synod. He now
devoted himself to spreading and confirming Christianity in the
new bishopric. In the spring of 748 he went to Rome to make a
report on the condition of the Church in Franconia and to submit
various questions for decision. Burchard was held in high esteem
by Pepin the Short. When the latter, in 749, appointed an
embassy to lay before Pope Zachary the question who should be
King of the Franks, he placed Burchard and Abbot Fulrad of St.
Denis at its head. After his return from Rome Burchard was not
able to continue his apostolic activity for any great space of
time and died before St. Boniface. One of his successors, Hugo
(984-990), had Burchard's remains dug up and solemnly buried on
14 October. This day has remained the feast-day of the saint.
Vita S. Burchardi in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV, 47-50
(unreliable account of ninth and tenth centuries); Vita S.
Burchardi, in Acta S. S., Oct., IV, 575 sqq. (account of twelfth
century); NURNBERGER, Aus der litterar. Hinterlassenschaft des
hl. Bonifatius und des hl. Burchardus (Neisse, 1888); ULRICH,
Der hl. Burchardus, erster Bischof von Würzurg (Würzurg, 1877);
HAUCK, Kirchengesch. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1898-1900), I, II,
passim.
J.P. KIRSCH
Hans Burckmair
Hans Burckmair
(Or Burgkmair).
A painter of the Swabian school, b. at Augsburg in 1473; d. in
1531. He was the son of Toman, or Thomas Burckmair, and received
his first lessons in are from his father, then went, it appears,
to Schongauer in Alsace, and afterwards to Italy. In company
with the elder Holbein he painted, between the years 1501 and
1504, the seven great churches of Rome on panels in the
monastery if St. Catherine of Augsburg. To Burckmair belong,
among these, the basilica of St. Peter, the basilica of the
Lateran, and the church of Santa Croce. The building itself is
represented in the main compartment of each picture; above are,
respectively, Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, the
Scourging, and the Crucifixion. Following the titles of the
churches there are, in the first picture, St. Peter, enthroned
and accompanied by the Fourteen Holy Martyrs; in the second, the
legend of St. John the Evangelist, and in the third, the
martyrdom of the Eleven Thousand Virgins. Several fine figures
in the paintings show Italian influence. Not much later in date
is the painting of Christ and the Blessed Virgin, the latter
wearing a crown; most charming figures of angels and three
groups of saints are depicted on the wings as surrounding the
central personages. The pictures just mentioned are in Augsburg.
Among the Madonnas at Nuremburg, the Madonna with the bunch of
grapes is especially admired. An attractive genre picture with a
background of harmonious tone that brings out the effect is the
Holy Family in the Berlin Museum.
The best of Burckmair's later panel pictures are: the
Crucifixion, with St. George and the Emperor Heinrich on the
wings, painted in 1519 and now at Augsburg; St. John in Patmos,
and Esther before Assuerus, painted in 1528 (these two at
Munich). Several portraits still exist which Burckmair painted
in the later years of his life. Among these is one of the artist
himself and his wife, painted in 1529, now at Vienna. In this
picture his wife holds a mirror in her hand in which two skulls
are reflected.
A woodcut of earlier date (1510) resembles a picture from a
Dance of Death. In this engraving Death stops a pair of lovers,
throws the youth down, and strangles him; at the same time he
seizes with his teeth the dress of the young woman, who is
fleeing. The woodcuts that Burckmair produced in the middle part
of his career (1510-19), at the command of Emperor Maximilian,
possess unusual merit. Only one of them, or, at most, very few
were inserted in the emperor's Prayer Book. For the other books
concerned with Maximilian or his ancestors Burckmair's work was
as follows: for the "Osterreichische Heiligen" (Austrian Saints)
Burckmair made 124 engravings on wood; for "Teuerdank" 12; for
"The Triumph" over 60; for the "Weiszkunig" more than 200; he
finally completed the "Genealogie" with some 70 illustrations.
As an example of his decorative work may be mentioned the
adornments, which are full of imaginative power, in the
so-called "Damenhof" of the house of the Fugger family at
Augsburg. Under the influence of Italian art Burckmair modified
the old realistic method of treating a subject, gradually
replaced Gothic architecture in his work by that of the
Renaissance, substituted colour for gold in painting, and
developed the use of landscape as a background.
Janitschek, Geschishte der deutschen Malerai (Berlin, 1890);
Huber in Zeitschrift des hist. Vereins fur Schwaben, I, Parts
II, III; Muther in Zeitschrift fur bildende Kunst, XIX; Idem in
Repertorium fur Kunstwissenshaft, IX.
G. GEITMANN
Edward Ambrose Burgis
Edward Ambrose Burgis
A Dominican historian and theologian, b. in England c. 1673; d.
in Brussels, 27 April, 1747. When a young man he left the Church
of England, of which his father was a minister, and became a
Catholic, joining the Dominican Order at Rome, where he passed
his noviceship in the convent of Sts. John and Paul on the
Coelian Hill, then occupied by the English Dominicans. After his
religious profession (1696) he was sent to Naples to the
Dominican school of St. Thomas, where he displayed unusual
mental ability. Upon the completion of his studies he was sent
to Louvain, where for nearly thirty years he taught philosophy,
theology, Sacred Scripture, and church history in the College of
St. Thomas, established in 1697 for the Dominicans of England
through the bequest of Cardinal Thomas Howard, O.P. He was the
rector of the college from 1715 to 1720 and again from 1724 to
1730. In the latter year he was elected to the office of
provincial; in 1741 he became Prior of the English Dominican
convent at Bornhem, and in 1746 he was appointed Vicar-General
of the English Dominicans in Belgium. He published a number of
pamphlets of considerable merit containing theses written in
Latin on Scriptural, theological, and historical subjects. But
it was as a writer of English that he excelled, especially along
historical lines; his style is easy and pleasing, and he is
accurate in his statements. In 1712 he published in London "The
Annals of the Church", a volume embracing the period from A.D.
34 to 300. As stated in the preface it was his intention to
bring the annals down to his own time in a work of nine volumes,
but he abandoned this plan, rewrote the first period and
published "The Annals of the Church from the Death of Christ",
in five octavo volumes (London, 1738), the first work of the
kind written in English by Catholic or Protestant. The book
entitles "An Introduction to the Catholic Faith", by Father
Thomas Worthington, O.P. (London, 1709), was completed by Father
Burgis, although his name does not appear in connection with it.
Palmer, Obituary Notices O.S.D. (London, 1884); Olliver,
Collections.
A.L. MCMAHON
Francisco Burgoa
Francisco Burgoa
Born at Oaxaca about 1600; d. at Teopozotlan in 1681. He entered
the Dominican Order 2 August, 1629, and soon became master in
theology. The voluminous books written by him on the past of his
native Mexican State, Oaxaca, are very rare. They are valuable,
though not absolutely reliable on several topics. He was curate
of several Indian parishes and his knowledge of the Indian
languages, the Zapotec and Mixteco, is stated to have been very
thorough. In 1649 he became Provincial of the Province of San
Hipólito and took part in the chapter general of his order at
Rome, 1656. Returning to Mexico with the title of vicar-general,
a member of the Inquisition of Spain, and Commissary and
Inspector of Libraries of New Spain (Mexico), he again became
Provincial of Oaxaca in 1662. He was interested in several
ecclesiastical foundations and improvements, and highly
respected at the time of his death. The two historical and
geographical works through which he is best known are the
"Palestra histórica, ó Historia de la Provincia de San Hipólito
de Oaxaca, de la Orden de Predicadores" (Mexico, 1670), and the
"Descripción geográfica de la Am´rica setentrional" etc.
(Mexico, 1674). He published a number of sermons and also wrote
"Itinerario de Oaxaca á Roma y de Roma a Oaxaca", which is still
in manuscript.
Pinelo, Epitome de la biblioteca oriental y occidental (Madrid,
1737); Antonio, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1733-38);
Eguiara, Biblioteca mexicana (Mexico, 1755); Beristain,
Biblioteca hispano-americana etc. (Amecameca, 1883); Brasseur de
Bourbourg, Bibl. mexico-guatemalienne (Paris, 1871).
AD. F. BANDELIER
Burgos
Burgos
(Burgensis)
The Archdiocese of Burgos (from burgi, burgorum, signifying a
consolidation of districts or small villages) has been since the
tenth century an episcopal see of Spain, to which in the
eleventh century the ancient Sees of Oca and Valpuesta were
transferred. In 1574 Gregory XIII raised it to metropolitan
rank, at the request of Philip II. The archdiocese now
(Concordat of 1851) comprises almost the entire province of
Burgos. Its suffragans are: Calahorra (Logroño), El Burgo de
Osma, Palencia, Santander, Leon, and Vitoria. Its area is
approximately 8694 square miles, with a population of 340,000.
The diocese is divided into 1220 parishes, which form
forty-seven vicariates.
PHYSICAL FEATURES
The northern and eastern portion of the diocese is mountainous,
thickly wooded, and traversed by rivers, among which is the
Ebro, which rises in the mountains and serves as the eastern
boundary for Miranda. The Arlanza which crosses the diocese from
east to west flows by Salas de los Infantes, near the famous
monastery of Silos, and through the centre of the well-known
town of Lerma. The mountainous region is unproductive of
cereals, but fruits grow in abundance, and fine pasture-lands
sustain great herds of cows and sheep, which furnish excellent
meat and milk. Delicate cheeses which take their name from the
city and are famous throughout Spain, are made in this section.
Minerals are abundant, especially sulphate of soda, common salt,
iron, and hard coal. The southern part of the diocese,
especially the valley and plains, is fertile and produces
abundantly vegetables, cereals, and quite a quantity of wind.
The climate, cold but healthy, is damp towards the north.
Although this section has few industries, the transportation of
its fruit and minerals is greatly facilitated by the numerous
highways and by the railroad between Madrid and France which
crosses the eastern side of the diocese from south to north.
There are also some secondary railway lines for the operation of
the mines.
RELIGIOUS EDIFICES
Burgos possesses more religious monuments than any other Spanish
diocese, not even excepting Toledo - evidences of the piety of
the counts and kings of Castile and Leon. In addition to the
collegiate churches of Lerma, Villadiego, Plampiega, Palenzuela,
Cobarrubias, and others, there are in Burgos alone many
magnificent buildings. The cathedral, which its chapel of the
Condestable, the monastery of Las Huelgas, and the Carthusian
monastery of Miraflores, are museums of really permanent value.
The Cathedral
As an architectural monument this structure displays the best
features of the art of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
centuries. It was commenced by Bishop Mauritius in 1221, in the
reign of Ferdinand III and Beatrice of Swabia, and is Gothic in
style. the principal façade, Santa María la Mayor, faces west,
and on either side rise two towers about 262 feet in height,
terminating in octagonal spires covered with open stonework
traceries. The façade is composed of three stories, or sections.
The first, or ground story has three ogival entrances with
rectangular openings; the second has a gallery enclosed by a
pinnacled balustrade and a rose window as delicately carved as a
piece of lace, which admits some light into the church. In the
upper-most story there are two double-arched windows of ogival
style, with eight intercolumnar spaces, in each of which there
is a statue on a pedestal. The whole is finished with a
balustrade of letters carved in stone and forming the
inscription: Pulchra es et decora (Thou art beautiful and
graceful), in the centre of which is a statue of the Blessed
Virgin. In the lateral sections (the towers) the windows are
enclosed by stone balustrades, and the top is surmounted by
balconies of stone surrounded by balustrades formed of Gothic
letters in various inscriptions; needle-pointed pinnacles finish
the four corners. The spires, as already said, are octagonal in
shape; a gallery runs around the eight sides near the top, upon
which rest the graceful points of the conical finial.
The north portal is known as the portada de la Coronería. In the
lower portion of this are statues of the Twelve Apostles, the
windows in the central section being of the primitive ogival
style, and in the upper story there are three double-arched
windows with statues joined to the shafts of the columns; two
small spires, conical in shape like the main ones and decorated
with balustrades, rise on either side of this façade. From the
portal of the Coronería one can descend to that of the
Pellerjería, which faces east and is of the Renaissance style
known as the Plateresque. It is divided into three sections, the
two end ones being alike, with the centre different in style and
dimensions. The former are composed of pilasters minutely
carved, between which four statues are placed. The middle
section, which serves for an entrance, has three alabaster
pilasters, the intercolumnar spaces bearing panel-pictures
representing the martyrdom of saints. The façade as a whole
gives the impression of a gorgeous picture, and the ornate and
fantastic devices sculptured all over its magnificent surface
are simply innumerable.
The octagonal chapel of the Condestable, of florid Gothic and
very pure in design, is the best of the many chapels of the
cathedral. Its roof if finished with balustraded turrets,
needle-pointed pinnacles, statues, and countless other
sculptural devices. In the lower portion coats of arms, shields,
and crouching lions have been worked into the ensemble. The
exterior of the sacristy is decorated with carved traceries,
figures of angels and armoured knights. The tabernacle is of
extraordinary magnificence and is composed of two octagonal
sections in Corinthian style.
Las Huelgas
Next to the cathedral in magnificence is the famous Monasterio
de las Huelgas on the outskirts of the city. It dates from the
year 1180, and architecturally belongs to the transition period
from Byzantine to Gothic, although in the course of time almost
every style has been introduced into it. This convent has two
remarkable cloisters, one a very fine example of the earlier
period and of the use of semi-circular arches and delicate and
varied columns; the other of the ogival style of the transition
period. The interior of the church is in the style of the
latter, enormous columns supporting its magnificent vault; the
entrance is modern. This convent is celebrated for the
extraordinary privileges granted to its abbess by kings and
popes.
Miraflores
The Carthusian monastery of Miraflores, celebrated for the
strict observance of its rule, is situated about one mile from
the city. A very beautiful and life-like statue of St. Bruno
carved in wood is one of the treasures of the monastery; the
stalls in the church also display exquisite workmanship. The
mausoleum of King John II and of his wife Isabel, in this
monastery, is constructed of the finest marble and so delicately
carved that portions seem to be sculptured in wax rather than
stone. Around the top are beautiful statues of angels in
miniature, which might be the work of Phidias. The French
soldiers in the War of Independence (1814) mutilated this
beautiful work, cutting off some of the heads and carrying them
away to France.
Celebrated Churches
Burgos has other important churches. That of Santa Agueda,
commonly called Santa Gadea, is chiefly celebrated for its
antiquity and for the historic fact that it was in this church
that Alfonso VI, in the presence of the famous Cid Campeador
(Rodrigo Díaz del Vivar), swore that he had taken no part in the
death of his brother the king, Don Sancho, assassinated in the
Cerco de Zamora. without this oath he never would have been
allowed to succeed to the royal crown of Castile. In this church
also the Augustinian friar, St. Juan de Sahagun, was wont to
preach, hear confessions, and give missions, after he had
renounced the canonry and other ecclesiastical benefices which
he held in that diocese. Among the other notable churches are:
San Esteban, San Gil (Sancti Aegidii), San Pedro, San Cosme y
San Damian, Santiago (Sancti Jacobi), San Lorenzo, and San
Lesmes (Adelelmi). The Convento de la Merced, occupied by the
Jesuits, and the Hospital del Rey are also worthy of mention. In
the walls of the city are the famous gateway of Santa María,
erected for the first entrance of the Emperor Charles V, and the
arch of Fernán González. The diocese has two fine ecclesiastical
seminaries. There are also many institutions for secular
education. Schools are maintained in every diocese, the
Instituto Provincial, and many colleges are conducted by private
individuals, religious orders, and nuns both cloistered and
uncloistered.
History of Burgos
When the Romans took possession of what is now the province of
Burgos it was inhabited by the Morgobos, Turmodigos, Berones,
and perhaps also the Pelendones, the last inhabitants of the
northern part of the Celtiberian province. the principal cities,
according to Ptolemy, were: Brabum, Sisara, Deobrigula, Ambisna
Segiasamon, Verovesca (briviesca), and others. In the time of
the Romans it belonged to Hither Spain (Hispania Citerior) and
afterwards to the Tarragonese province. The Arabs occupied all
of Castile, though only for a brief period, and left no trace of
their occupation. Alfonso (III) the Great reconquered it about
the middle of the ninth century, and built many castles for the
defence of the Christians, then extending their dominion and
reconquering the lost territory. In this way the region came to
be known as Castilla (Lat. castella), i.e. "land of castles".
Don Diego, Count of Porcelos, was entrusted with the government
of this territory, and commanded to promote the increase of the
Christian population. with this end in view he gathered the
inhabitants of the surrounding country into one village, which
took the name of Burgos, or burgi. The city thus bounded began
to be called Caput Castellae. The territory (condado), subject
to the Kings of Leon, continued to be governed by counts and was
gradually extended by victories over the Moors, until the time
of Fernán González, the greatest of these rulers, when it became
independent; it later on took the name of the Kingdom of
Castile, being sometimes united with Navarre and sometimes with
Leon. In the reign of St. Ferdinand III (c. 1200-52), Leon and
Castile were definitely united, but they continued to be called
respectively the Kingdom of Leon and the Kingdom of Castile
until the nineteenth century. This district has been the scene
of many and varied events: the wars with the Arabs, the
struggles between Leon and Navarre, and between Castile and
Aragon, the War of Independence against France, and the civil
wars of the Spanish succession.
COUNCILS
Some important councils have been held in Burgos. A national
council took place there in 1078, although opinions differ as to
date (the "Boletín de la Academia de la Historia de Madrid",
1906, XLIX, 337, says 1080). This was presided over by the papal
delegate, Cardinal Roberto and attended by Alfonso VI, and was
convoked for the purpose of introducing into Spain the Roman
Breviary and Missal instead of the Gothic, or Mozarabic, then in
use. Another national council, presided over by Cardinal Boso
(d. 1181), also papal delegate, settled questions of discipline
and established diocesan rights and limits. The proceedings of
this council remained unpublished until quite recently, when
they were made known in the Boletín already mentioned (XLVIII)
395). In 1898 a provincial council was called by Archbishop (no
Cardinal) Don Fr. Gregorio Aguirre, in which the obligations of
the clergy and the faithful were most minutely set forth.
SAINTS OF BURGOS
St. Julian, Bishop of Cuenca, called the Almoner, because of his
great charity to the poor, was born in Burgos; also St. Amaro
the Pilgrim, who has always had a special cult paid to him in
Burgos, though not found in the Roman Martyrology. St. Iñigo
(Enecus or Ignatius), abbot of Oña, while not born in Burgos,
laboured there for many years; also St. Domingo de Silos, abbot
and reformer of the famous convent of Silos, and St. Juan de
Sahagún, a native of that town in the province of Leon. Among
its saints may also be mentioned the martyrs of Cardeña, a
religious of the convent of the same name, who in the tenth
century were put to death for the Faith by the Arab soldiers of
the Emir of Cordova in one of their numerous invasions of
Castile; and St. Casilda, daughter of one of the Moorish kings
of Toledo. She was converted near Burgos whither she had gone
with her father's consent to drink the water of some medicinal
springs. She built a hermitage and died a saintly death.
FAMOUS BISHOPS AND CITIZENS
In the long line of bishops and archbishops the following
deserve special mention: Pablo de Santa María (1396-1456), a
converted rabbi, preceptor and counsellor of John II; his son
and successor (1435-56) Alfonso (de Cartagena), one of the most
learned members of the Council of Basle and to whom is owing the
erection of the Chapel del Condestable by Juan de Colonia, a
German architect who accompanied him to Spain; Cardinal Inigo
López de Mendoza y Zuniga, brother of the Count of Peñaranda,
Duke of Miranda, who in 1535 convoked a synod; the Cardinal
Archbishop de Pacheco, in whose time Burgos was raised to the
dignity of an archiepiscopal see; and Archbishop Don Fr.
Gregorio Aguirre, also administrator of the See of Calahorra.
Among the famous laymen, the name of Rodrigo Díaz del Vivar (d.
1099), the Cid Campeador, naturally stands pre-eminent. He was
the hero of his time, and the man most feared by the
Mohammedans, whom he defeated in innumerable encounters. He is
buried in Burgos, in the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña. Don
Ramón Bonifaz was according to some authorities a native of
Burgos, but in any event he lived there. St. Ferdinand entrusted
to him the task of forming the Spanish squadron with which he
established and maintained communication with the troops who
were besieging Seville, and prevented the Moors from
communicating with the city. One of his fleets destroyed the
bridge by which the Moors had access to the outside world and
received provisions; this brought about the surrender (1248) of
the city of Seville to the Christians, led by St. Ferdinand
himself.
Burgos has produced many men of letters. The bibliography,
published (1889) by Don Manuel Martínez Añibarro under the title
"Diccionario Biográfico y Bibliográfico de Burgos", forms a
small folio volume of 570 pages. Among the most distinguished
writers are Archbishop Pablo de Santa María who wrote
"Scrutinium Scripturarum" (Mantua, 1474) against the Jews. the
aforesaid Don Alonso de Cartagena, his son, author of various
works; the learned Augustinian friar Enrique Flórez, author of
the famous works, "La España Sagrada" (1743-75, 29 vols.,
continued by others to 1886, 51 vols.), "Memorias de las Reynas"
(1762), "Medallas Antiguas" (1757-73), and many others. His
statue was erected in his native town of Villadiego by popular
subscription.
Among the several newspapers published at Burgos "El Castellano"
and "El Boletín Eclesiástico" are under the direction of the
archbishop.
TIRSO LÓPEZ
Burgundy
Burgundy
(Lat. Burgundia, Ger. Burgund, Fr. Bourgogne).
In medieval times respectively a kingdom and a duchy, later a
province of France (to 1789), and now represented mostly by the
departments of Ain, Saône-et-Loire, Côte-d'Or, and Yonne. It has
nearly 2,000,000 inhabitants, and is famous for its diversified
scenery, its rich wines, its rivers and canals, varied
industries, mineral wealth, and many prosperous cities. In the
fifth century a Germanic tribe, the Burgundi or Burgundiones,
conquered from the Romans the fertile basins of the Rhone, the
Saône, and the Loire, but were unable to maintain their
sovereignty (Lyons, Geneva, Vienne) which in the next century
they lost (534) to the Frankish successors of Clovis [Binding,
"Das burgundisch-romanische Königreich von 443-532", Leipzig,
1868; Drapeyron, "Du rôle de la Bourgogne sous les Mérovingiens"
in "Mém. lus à la Sorbonne", 1866, 29-42; B. Hauréau, "L'Eglise
et l'Etat sous les premiers rois de Bourgogne" in "Mém. de
l'Acad. des inscriptions et belles-lettres", Paris, 1867, XXVI
(1), 137-172]. In the latter quarter of the ninth century this
territory again acquired independence, first as the short-lived
Kingdom of Arles, and then as the dual Kingdom of North and
South (or Lesser) Burgundy, the latter including Provence or the
lands between Lyons and the sea, while the former took in,
roughly speaking, the territory north of Lyons, now divided
between France and Switzerland. These kingdoms, known as
Transjurane and Cisjurane Burgundy, were reunited (935) under
Rudolf II. The independence of this "middle kingdom", the
medieval counterpart of modern Switzerland, was short-lived, for
in 1038 Emperor Conrad II obtained the crown of Burgundy for his
son (later Emperor) Henry III. For two centuries German
influence was uppermost in the counsels of the Burgundian
rulers, but little by little the growing prestige and power of
neighbouring France asserted themselves, beginning with the
annexation of Lyons by Philip the Fair in 1310 and ending with
that of Savoy and Nice in 1860. During this time, in language,
laws, and institutions Burgundy became regularly more closely
assimilated to France, and finally an integral part of that
nation when, on the death of Charles the Bold (1477), Louis XI
incorporated with France the Duchy of Burgundy and extinguished
thereby, in favour of the royal prerogative, one of the most
important fiefs of the French Crown (G. Hüffer, "Das Verhältniss
des Königreichs Burgund zu Kaiser und Reich, besonders unter
Friedrich I", Paderborn, 1874; Reese, "Die staatsrechtliche
Stellung der Bischöfe Burgunds und Italiens under Kaiser
Friedrich I", Göttingen, 1885; cf. André Du Chesne, "Hist. des
rois, ducs, et comtes de Bourgogne et d'Arles", Paris, 1619; de
Camps, "De la souveraineté de la couronne de France sur les
royaumes de Bourgogne Transjurane et d'Arles", in "Mercure de
France", April, 1723; von Bertouch, "Burgund als Scheidewand
zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich, eine historisch-politische
Frage", Wiesbaden, 1885).
The medieval political vicissitudes of the Kingdom of Burgundy
are accurately outlined in E. Freeman, "Historical Geography of
Europe" (ed. Bury, London, 1903), passim. The following passage
from that work (pp. 258-259) exhibits in a brief but philosophic
way the political vicissitudes and rôle of medieval Burgundy:
The Burgundian Kingdom, which was united with those of Germany and
Italy after the death of its last separate king, Rudolf the Third
[1032], has had a fate unlike that of any other part of Europe. Its
memory, as a separate state, has gradually died out. The greater
part of its territory has been swallowed up, bit by bit, by a
neighbouring power, and the small part which has escaped that fate
has long lost all trace of its original name or its original
political relations. By a long series of annexations, spreading over
more than five hundred years, the greater part of the kingdom has
gradually been incorporated with France. Of what remains, a small
corner forms part of the modern Kingdom of Italy, while the rest
still keeps its independence in the form of the commonwealths which
make up the western cantons of Switzerland. These cantons, in fact,
are the truest modern representatives of the Burgundian Kingdom. And
it is on the confederation of which they form a part, interposed as
it is between France, Italy, the new German Empire, and the modern
Austrian Monarchy, as a central state with a guaranteed neutrality,
that some trace of the old function of Burgundy, as the middle
kingdom, is thrown. This function it shares with the Lotharingian
lands at the other end of the empire, which now form part of the
equally neutral Kingdom of Belgium, lands which, oddly enough,
themselves became Burgundian in another sense.
The present article deals chiefly with Northern Burgundy since
the middle of the fourteenth century, and may serve as an
introduction to the articles on BELGIUM and the NETHERLANDS.
States of the House of Burgundy
The formation of the Burgundian State from which sprang the two
kingdoms of Belgium and the Netherlands, is an historical
phenomenon of intense interest. The Duchy of Burgundy was one of
the fiefs of the French Crown. Made vacant in 1361 by the death
of Philippe de Rouvre, the last of the older line of dukes, it
was presented by John II, King of France, to his son Philip the
Bold who, at the age of fourteen, had fought so valiantly at his
father's side in the battle of Poitiers. In 1369, as the result
of the negotiations with his brother, King Charles V, Philip
married Marguerite de Male, widow of his predecessor and sole
heir to the countship of Flanders, thereby acquiring that
magnificent domain including the cities of Antwerp and Mechlin
and the countships of Nevers and Rathel, not to mention the
countships of Artois and Burgundy to be inherited from his
wife's grandmother. He thus became the most powerful feudary of
the Kingdom of France. To be sure he had to conquer Flanders by
dint of arms, as the people of Ghent, who had rebelled against
the late count, Louis de Male, had no intention of submitting to
his heir. But Philip had the armies of his nephew, King Charles
VI, march against them and they lost the battle of Roosebeke
(1382); then, after continuing the struggle for two years
longer, they were finally obliged to submit in 1385. The Peace
of Tournai put Philip in possession of his countship, yet he was
not satisfied and, through adroit negotiations, he succeeded in
securing foothold for his family in most of the other Netherland
territories. By the marriage of his daughter Margaret with Count
William of Hainault, proprietor of the countships of Hainault,
Holland, and Zealand, Philip provided for the annexation of
these three domains. Moreover, he obtained for his wife,
Margaret, the inheritance of her widowed and childless aunt,
Jane, Duchess of Brabant and Limburg, and gave it to Anthony,
his youngest son, whilst the eldest, John the Fearless, was made
heir to his other states (1404). But John the Fearless did
nothing great for the Netherlands, being better known for his
ardent participation in the troubles that disturbed the Kingdom
of France during the reign of the deranged King Charles VI.
After assassinating Louis of Orleans, the king's brother, John
himself perished at the Bridge of Montereau during his famous
interview with the Dauphin, being dispatched by the latter's
followers (1414). The first two Dukes of Burgundy who reigned in
the Netherlands were pre-eminently French princes and bent upon
preserving and augmenting the prestige they enjoyed in France as
princes of the blood royal. On the other hand, their two
successors were essentially Belgian princes whose chief aim was
the extension of their domains and whose policy was distinctly
anti-French. Of course the assassination at Montereau, by
setting them at variance with the French Crown, had helped to
bring this change about, but it would have taken place in any
event. To avenge his father, Philip the Good allied himself with
the English to whom he rendered valuable services, especially by
delivering to them Joan of Arc, made prisoner by his troops at
Compiègne. When, in 1435, he at length became reconciled to the
king by the treaty of Arras, it was on condition of being
dispensed from all vassalage and of receiving the cities along
the River Somme. At this price he agreed to help the king
against his own former allies and participated in the
unsuccessful siege of Calais (1436).
Effects of Philip's Rule
The chief work of Philip the Good was to reunite under his
authority most of the Netherland provinces. In 1421 he purchased
the countship of Namur from John III, its last incumbent. In
1430 he became Duke of Brabant and Limburg as heir of his first
cousin, Philip of Saint-Pol, son of Duke Anthony; in 1428 he
constrained his cousin Jacqueline of Bavaria, Countess of
Hainault, Holland, and Zealand, and Lady of Friesland, to
recognize him as her heir, and even during her lifetime, in
1433, he obliged her to relinquish this inheritance. Finally, in
1444, he purchased the claims of Elizabeth of Gorlitz to the
Duchy of Luxemburg, thus owning all of modern Belgium except the
principality of Liège, all the western provinces of the present
Kingdom of the Netherlands, and several French provinces.
However, this did not suffice and he managed to place his
bastards in the episcopal Sees of Cambrai and Utrecht and his
nephew in that of Liège. Victorious over all his enemies, among
whom was the King of France, in 1437 he held out against the
Emperor Sigismund who tried in vain to re-establish the
dependency of the Netherlands upon the empire. On two different
occasions in 1447 and 1463, he importuned the Emperor Frederick
III to give him the title of king, but the attempts failed.
Nevertheless, under the title of "Grand Duke of the West" he won
the admiration of his contemporaries and was the richest and
most powerful sovereign in Europe. It was he whom Pope Nicholas
V wished to place at the head of the new crusade he was
planning, and during a sumptuous feast at which he made the
celebrated voeu du faisan, Philip promised to take the cross.
But the crusade did not take place. Being master of so many
provinces, Philip wished to unite them under a central
government, but this was not easy of accomplishment. Each of
them considered itself a self-governing State, independent of
all the others and living its own life; moreover, the large
cities of Flanders also claimed to be separate commonwealths and
tried to escape centralization. Despite his entreaties, Ghent
forsook the duke at the siege of Calais in 1436; in 1438 Bruges
was the scene of a revolt where he was nearly made prisoner; and
in 1451 Ghent revolted. But the duke overcame all these
obstacles to his ambition and, through his victory of Gavre in
1453; obtained possession of the commune of Ghent, the most
intractable of all. The people of Liège were now the only ones
who resisted him, but in 1465 he conquered them at Montenaeken
and imposed upon them very severe conditions. A twelvemonth
later he destroyed the city of Dinant. During his last years
Philip's faculties became impaired and Louis XI of France not
only made trouble between him and his son but even influenced
the duke into giving up the cities of the Somme. However, in
1465 Philip became reconciled to his son, Charles, and confided
to him the administration of affairs, dying 15 June, 1467. A
shrewd man and cunning politician, Philip was likewise
ostentatious, irascible, and licentious. The splendour of his
court was unequalled, and the founding of the Order of the
Golden Fleece at Bruges in 1430, on the occasion of his third
marriage, this time with Isabella of Portugal, marks, to some
extent, the culmination of the luxury of the time.
Charles the Bold
Inheriting neither the astuteness nor the vices of his father,
Charles the Bold was industrious, eager for justice, and
irreproachable in his private life; but his boldness amounted to
rashness and his ability was not at all commensurate with his
unbounded ambition. In his earlier years all was well. During
his father's lifetime he placed himself at the head of the
"League of the Public Weal" which gathered about him the French
lords who were unfavourably disposed toward Louis XI. Charles
was victorious over Louis at Montlhéry, after which triumph the
Peace of Conflans (1465) gave him the cities of the Somme. He
humbled the cities of Ghent and Mechlin for having dared to
oppose him, fought the people of Liège at Brusthem, and deprived
them of their freedom. King Louis XI, who strove to combat the
duke by dint of intrigue, was destined to become the victim of
his own trickery. While he was visiting Charles in Peronne, the
latter sovereign learned that the people of Liège were again in
revolt, having been excited thereto by the king's agents.
Furious at this intelligence, he kept Louis prisoner and forced
him to accompany him to Liège where the wretched monarch
witnessed the total destruction of the unfortunate city to which
he had promised assistance (1468). Although the conqueror of all
his enemies Charles still entertained mighty projects, and in
1469 he obtained the possession of the landgraviate of Alsace
and the county of Ferrette (Pfirt) as security for a loan made
to Sigismund. He prevailed upon Duke Arnoul to sell him the
Duchy of Guelderland, the duke being at war with his son
Adolphus (1472). He then marched against the King of France, but
was stopped before the walls of Beauvais by the heroic
resistance of its citizens (1472) and made to sign the truce of
Senlis. Nor was he any more successful in his attempt to obtain
a king's crown from the Emperor Frederick III, to whose son,
Maximilian, he had promised the hand of his own daughter, Mary.
Later, however, the emperor and the duke met at Trier for the
approaching coronation, when the emperor, whom the agents of
Louis XI had succeeded in alarming, hastily disappeared. At the
same time Louis stirred up further hostilities against Charles
on the Upper Rhine where a confederacy, including the Alsatian
villages and Swiss cantons was already plotting against him.
Meanwhile Charles had been wasting his troops on the tedious,
fruitless siege of the little city of Neuss on the Rhine, and
was therefore in no condition to rejoin his ally, Edward IV of
England, who had just landed in France. In order to have full
sway along the Rhine he signed the truce of Soluvre (1475) with
Louis XI and profited by it to take possession of Lorraine,
which till then had separated his Burgundian domains from those
of the Netherlands (provinces de par deça). He then advanced
upon the Swiss who defeated him most mercilessly at Granson and
Morat and fairly annihilated his army. René, the young Duke of
Lorraine, recovered his country and when Charles afterwards laid
siege to Nancy, its capital city, he lost courage, and betrayed
by one of his own hirelings, was defeated and killed in a
sortie. The next day his frozen corpse was found in a pond,
having been half devoured by wolves (5 January, 1477).
Mary and the "Great Privilege"
This catastrophe left the Burgundian estates in a most critical
condition. The sole heir to all these provinces, Mary of
Burgundy, who was then barely twenty years old, beheld storms
gathering both within and without. The King of France seized the
Duchy of Burgundy as a male fief of the Crown and also the
cities of the Somme and held up the other provinces to tempt the
cupidity of neighbouring princes. The large cities of Flanders
roused by Louis' confederates, grew restless and the
States-General, convened in February, 1477, obliged the young
duchess to grant the "Great Privilege". This famous act was a
violent reaction not only against the despotical tendencies of
the preceding governments, but also against all their work of
unification; it destroyed central institutions and reduced the
Burgundian States to nothing but a sort of federation of
provinces combined under the regime of personal union. Not
content with this, the people of Ghent brought to the scaffold
Hugonet and d'Humbercourt, Mary's two faithful counsellors, whom
they looked upon as representatives of the deceased duke's
absolutist regime. Satisfied that the country was sufficiently
weakened and disorganized, Louis XI threw off the mask and
ordered his army into Artois and Hainault. The imminence of
danger seemed to revive a spirit of loyalty in the Burgundian
provinces and the marriage of Mary and Maximilian of Habsburg,
son of Frederick III, was hastened. This marriage saved the
inheritance of the young princess but, as we shall see, it
resulted in thereafter making the Netherlands dependent upon
foreign dynasties. Meanwhile Maximilian vigorously repulsed the
French in the battle of Guinegate (1479). Unfortunately Mary of
Burgundy died in 1482 from injuries sustained in a fall from her
horse, and Maximilian's claim to the right of governing the
provinces in the capacity of regent during the minority of his
son Philip, roused the indignation of the States-General, which
were led by the three large Flemish cities of Ghent, Bruges, and
Ypres. Duped by Louis XI they concluded with him the second
Peace of Arras (1482) which gave the hand of their Princess
Margaret to the Dauphin, with Artois and Burgundy for her dower,
and Maximilian was deprived of his children who were provided
with a regency council. This was the origin of a desparate
struggle between himself and the States-General during which he
was made prisoner by the people of Bruges, and it was with the
greatest difficulty that he obtained his freedom. Immediately
upon his release he began again to contend with the States,
which eventually were obliged to submit to his power (1492), and
the treaty of Senlis with France restored Artois to Maximilian
with his daughter Margaret (1493). In this same year Maximilian
became emperor and liberated his son Philip who assumed the
government of the Netherlands.
Philip the Handsome
The reign of Philip the Handsome, which lasted thirteen years,
promised Belgium an era of self-government and independence, but
his marriage with Joanna of Castile only paved the way for its
dependence on a foreign sovereign as, on the death of the son of
Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella, it was Philip who, in the
name of his wife, became King of Castile. However, he died in
1506 and as his father-in-law, Ferdinand, soon followed him to
the tomb, it was Charles, son of Philip the Handsome, who
inherited all the great Spanish monarchy "on which the sun never
set", the Netherlands being thenceforth only a dependency of his
chief kingdom. But at first this was not noticeable. Charles,
who was also the emperor (with the title of Charles V),
travelled much and paid frequent visits to the Netherlands,
showing a special predilection for his Flemish fellow-countrymen
and knowing how to make himself popular among them. He confided
their country to the care of his aunt, Margaret of Austria, and
later to that of his sister, Mary of Hungary (1531-55), both
talented women and of great service to him. Charles' reign
represents the maximum of political and commercial prosperity in
the Netherlands to which he annexed the city of Tournai (1521),
the provinces of Friesland (1523), Utrecht and Overyssel (1528),
Groningen and Drenthe (1536), and the Duchy of Guelderland
(1543). Thus the patrimony was definitively settled and known
thereafter as the Seventeen Provinces. By his Pragmatic Sanction
of 1549 Charles V declared this domain an indivisible whole and
nothing contributed more to the formation of national unity. He
sundered the ties of vassalage that bound Flanders to the
Kingdom of France, and although emperor, permitted the authority
of the empire to come to naught in the provinces west of the
Scheldt. Beginning with 1548 they in truth formed the "Circle of
Burgundy", a title which implied little or no duty toward the
empire. In the interior Charles V organized a central government
by creating three councils, called collateral, and established
with a view to simplifying matters for the female ruler; they
were the council of state for general affairs, the privy council
for administrative purposes, and the council of finance. He
introduced the Inquisition, issued extremely severe "placards"
prohibiting heresy, and harshly suppressed Ghent, his native
city, which had refused to vote certain subsidies and had given
itself up to acts of violence (1540). It was deprived of all its
freedoms and at this time communal government may be said to
have received its death-blow in the Netherlands.
Philip II
However, Charles V was sincerely regretted when, during a solemn
session held at Brussels before representatives of the States,
25 October, 1555, he renounced the government of the Netherlands
in favour of his son, Philip II. Strictly speaking, with Charles
V ended the Burgundian era in this country which was
subsequently known as the Spanish Netherlands. But as yet these
states had no national name, the dukes generally alluding to
them as their provinces de par deça in contradistinction to the
Duchy and Countship of Burgundy which were territorially
separated from them. Nevertheless, although this duchy and
countship had been conquered by France, from the fifteenth
century it had been customary to call them Burgundy, and their
inhabitants Burgundians. Even the French spoken at the ducal
court was called Burgundian. In spite of the efforts made at
bringing about unification, the spirit of particularism
prevailed in the various provinces in matters of legislation,
each according political rights to its own inhabitants
exclusively and opposing central institutions as much as
possible. From the time of Philip the Good the Netherlands had
been the centre of a luxurious and brilliant civilization, and
Antwerp, which had replaced Bruges, whose harbour had become
sand-filled, was recognized as the chief commercial city of
Europe. Nothing could equal the sumptuousness of the court which
was the rendezvous of many literary men and artists, and it was
during the reign of Philip the Good that the Bruges school of
painting sprang up and prospered, boasting of such famous
members as the brothers John and Hubert Van Eyck, Hans Memling,
and Gerard David, whilst Brussels, Ghent, Louvain, and Antwerp
gloried in artists like Roger Van den Weyden, Hugo Van der Goes,
Thierry Bouts, Quentin Metsys, and in the great sculptor Claus
Sluter. Although literature did not flourish to the same extent
as the arts, the historians Philippe de Comines, Molinet,
Chastelain, and Olivier de la Marche are certainly deserving of
mention and were far superior to the French historians of the
same epoch.
For the public ecclesiastical history of Burgundy see articles
BESANÇON, DIJON, LYONS, MÂCON. Also Antoine Mille, "Abrégé
chronologique de l'histoire ecclésiastique civile et littéraire
de Bourgogne, depuis l'établissement des Bourguignons dans las
Gaules jusqu'à l'année 1772" (Dijon, 1771-73); and the histories
of various religious orders established in Burgundy, e. g. J.
Foderé, "Narration historique et topographique des couvents de
l'ordre de St-François et de Ste-Claire érigés en la province
anciennement appelée de Bourgogne", etc. (Lyon, 1619);
Lavirotte, "Mémoire statistique sur les établissements des
Templiers et des Hospitaliers de St-Jean de Jérusalem en
Bourgogne" (Paris, 1853); "Pèlerinages en Bourgogne" in "Congrès
scient. France" (Autun, 1876-78), II, 90; Quantin, "Mémoire sur
l'influence des monastères des ordres de St-Benoît et de Cîteaux
en Bourgogne", in same collection (Auxerre, 1858059), II, 390;
J. Simonnet, "Le clergé en Bourgogne" (XIV, XV siècles) in "Mém.
de l'Acad. de Dijon" (1866), XIII, 21-143; C. Seignobos, "Le
régime féodal en Bourgogne jusqu'en 1360, étude sur la société
et les institutions d'une province française au moyen-âge", etc.
(Paris, 1881).
KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Chroniques relatives a l'histoire de
Belgique sous la domination des ducs de Bourgogne (Brussels,
1870-76); CHASTELAIN, Chronique, ed. KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE
(Brussels, 1863-66); DE LA MARCHE, Memoires, ed. BEAUNE AND
D'ARBAUMONT (Paris, 1883-88); MOLINET, Chronique, ed. BUCHON
(Paris, 1827-28); PHIIPPE DE COMINES Memoires, ed. DE MANDROT
(Paris, 1901-03); DE BARANTE, Hist. des ducs de Bourgogne de la
maison de Valois (Paris, 1824-26), republished several times in
Belgium, FREDERICQ, Essai sur le role politique et social des
ducs de Bourgogne dans les Pays-Bas (Ghent, 1875); PIRIENNE,
Hist. de Belgique (1907), III; VON LOHER, Jakobaa von Bayern und
ihre Zeit (1869); KIRK, History of Charles the Bold, Duke of
Burgundy (1863-68); TOUTEY, Charles le Temeraire et la ligue de
Constance (1902).
GODEFROID KURTH
Christian Burial
Christian Burial
The interment of a deceased person with ecclesiastical rites in
consecrated ground. The Jews and most of the nations of
antiquity buried their dead. Amongst the Greeks and Romans both
cremation and interment were practised indifferently. That the
early Christians from the beginning used only burial seems
certain. This conclusion may be inferred not only from negative
arguments but from the direct testimony of Tertullian, "De
Corona" (P.L., II, 92, 795; cf. Minucius Felix, "Octavius", xi
in P.L., III, 266), and from the stress laid upon the analogy
between the resurrection of the body and the Resurrection of
Christ (I Cor., xv, 42; cf. Tertullian, "De Animâ", lv;
Augustine, "De civitate Dei", I, xiii). In the light of this
same dogma of the resurrection of the body as well as of Jewish
tradition (cf. Tob., i, 21; xii, 12; Ecclus., xxxviii, 16; II
Mach., xii, 39), it is easy to understand how the interment of
the mortal remains of the Christian dead has always been
regarded as an act of religious import and has been surrounded
at all times with some measure of religious ceremonial. The
motives of Christian burial will be more fully treated in the
article Cremation. As to the latter practice, it will be
sufficient to say here that, while involving no necessary
contradiction of any article of faith, it is opposed alike to
the law of the Church and to the usages of antiquity. In defense
of the Church's recent prohibitions, it may be urged that the
revival of cremation in modern times has in practice been
prompted less by considerations of improved hygiene or
psychological sentiment than by avowed materialism and
opposition to Catholic teaching.
THE LAW OF THE CHURCH REGARDING BURIAL
According to the canon law every man is free to choose for
himself the burial ground in which he wishes to be interred. It
is not necessary that this choice should be formally registered
in his will. Any reasonable legal proof is sufficient as
evidence of his wishes in the matter, and it has been decided
that the testimony of one witness, for example his confessor,
may be accepted, if there be no suspicion of interested motives.
(S.C. Concilii, 24 march, 1871, Lex, 189.) Where no wish has
been expressed it will be assumed that the interment is to take
place in any vault or burial place which may have belonged to
the deceased or his family, and failing this the remains should
be buried in the cemetery of the parish in which the deceased
had his domicile or quasi-domicile. Certain exceptions, however,
are recognized in the case of cardinals, bishops, canons, etc.
Formerly monastic and other churches claimed and enjoyed under
certain conditions the privilege of interring notable
benefactors within their precincts. It may be said that no such
privilege is now recognized as a matter of right to the
detriment of the claim of the parish. If a man die in a parish
which is not his own, the canon law prescribes that the body
should be conveyed to his own parish for interment if this is
reasonably possible, but the parish priest of the place where he
died may claim the right of attending the corpse to the place of
burial. In fine, the principle is recognized that it belongs to
the parish priest to bury his own parishioners. The canon law
recognizes for regular orders the right to be buried in the
cemetery of their own monastery (Sägmäller, 453; l. Wagner in
"Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht", 1873, xxxix, 385; Kohn, ibid.,
xl, 329).
Originally, as burial was a spiritual function, it was laid down
that no fee could be exacted for this without simony (Decretum
Gratiani, xiii, q. ii; c. viii, ix; Extrav. de sim., V, 3). But
the custom of making gifts to the Church, partly as an
acknowledgment of the trouble taken by the clergy, partly for
the benefit of the soul of the departed, gradually became
general, and such offerings were recognized in time as jura
stoloe which went to the personal support of the parish priest
or his curates. It was, however, distinctly insisted upon that
the carrying out of the rites of the Church should not be made
conditional upon the payment of the fee being made beforehand,
though the parish priest could recover such fee afterwards by
process of law in case it were withheld. Moreover in the case of
the very poor he is bound to bury them gratuitously. If a
parishioner elected to be buried outside his own parish, a
certain proportion, generally a fourth part, of the fee paid or
the gifts that might be made in behalf of the deceased on
occasion of the burial was to go to the priest of his own
parish. Where an old custom existed, the continuance of the
payment of this fourth part under certain conditions was
recognized by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De ref., c.
xiii). Nowadays the principle is still maintained, but generally
the payment to the proprius parochus takes the form of the
fourth part of a definite burial-fee which is determined
according to some fixed tariff (S. C. Ep. et Reg., 19 January,
1866; S.C. Conc., 16 February, 1889), and which may be exacted
by the parish priest for every burial which takes place in his
district. He has, however, no right to any compensation if a
non-parishioner dies and is taken back to his own parish for
burial, nor again when one of his own parishioners dies away
from home and has to be buried in the place of his demise.
Only baptized persons have a claim to Christian burial and the
rites of the Church cannot lawfully be performed over those who
are not baptized. Moreover no strict claim can be allowed in the
case of those persons who have not lived in communion with the
Church according to the maxim which comes down from the time of
Pope Leo the Great (448) "quibus viventibus non communicavimus
mortuis communicare non possumus" (i.e. we cannot hold communion
in death with those who in life were not in communion with us).
It has further been recognized as a principle that the last
rites of the Church constitute a mark of respect which is not to
be shown to those who in their lives have proved themselves
unworthy of it. In this way various classes of persons are
excluded from Christian burial -- pagans, Jews, infidels,
heretics, and their adherents (Rit. Rom., VI, c. ii)
schismatics, apostates, and persons who have been excommunicated
by name or placed under an interdict. If an excommunicated
person be buried in a church or in a consecrated cemetery the
place is thereby desecrated, and, wherever possible, the remains
must be exhumed and buried elsewhere. Further, Christian burial
is to be refused to suicides (this prohibition is as old as the
fourth century; cf. Cassian in P.L., XL, 573) except in case
that the act was committed when they were of unsound mind or
unless they showed signs of repentance before death occurred. It
is also withheld from those who have been killed in a duel, even
though they should give signs of repentance before death. Other
persons similarly debarred are notorious sinners who die without
repentance, those who have openly held the sacraments in
contempt (for example by staying away from Communion at Easter
time to the public scandal) and who showed no signs of sorrow,
monks and nuns who are found to have died in the possession of
money or valuables which they had kept for their own, and
finally those who have directed that their bodies should be
cremated after death. In all such cases, however, the general
practice of the Church at the present day has been to interpret
these prohibitions as mildly as possible. Ordinarily the parish
priest is directed to refer doubtful cases to the bishop, and
the bishop, if any favourable construction can be found, allows
the burial to proceed.
Many complications are caused in the administration of the canon
law by the political conditions under which the Church exists in
modern times in most countries of the world. For instance, the
question may often arise whether a non-Catholic can be buried in
a consecrated cemetery belonging, not to the civil
administration, but to the Church, and perhaps adjoining the
sacred building itself; or again in such a case whether
non-Catholic worshippers can perform their own rites at the
interment. As it often happened that a Catholic graveyard was
the only available place of burial in a large district, it has
been decided as a matter of necessity that in such cases it was
possible to allow Protestants to be buried in a consecrated
graveyard (S. C. Inquis., 23 July, 1609). In some instances a
special portion of ground has been set aside for the purpose and
non-Catholic ritual is permitted to be used there. In cases of
necessity the Catholic parish priest may preside at such an
interment, but he must not use any ritual or prayers that would
be recognized as distinctively Catholic. It hardly needs saying
that at the present day in almost every part of the world the
prescriptions of the canon law regarding burial are in conflict
with secular legislation in more than one particular. In such
cases the Church is often compelled to waive her right, in order
to prevent greater evils. On the other hand, we may notice that
the Church's claim to exercise control over the burial of her
members dates back to an age anterior even to the freedom given
to Christianity under Constantine. From the beginning the
principle seems to have been insisted upon that the faithful
should be buried apart from the pagans. Thus St. Cyprian of
Carthage makes it a matter of reproach against a Spanish bishop
Martial that he had not sufficiently attended to this, and that
he had tolerated "filios exterarum gentium more apud profana
sepulchra depositos et alienigenis consepultos" (Cyprian, Ep.
lxvii, 6). In the same way St. Hilary, a century later,
considers that Our Saviour warned His disciples against a
similar profanation "Admonuit non admisceri memoriis sanctorum
mortuos infideles" (Hilary, in S. Matt., vii). So also the
Donatists when they gained the upper hand were so deeply imbued
with this principle of exclusive sepulture that they would not
allow the Catholics to be buried in the cemeteries they had
seized upon. "Ad hoc basilicas invadere voluistis ut vobis solis
coemeteria vindicetis, non permittentes sepeliri corpora
Catholica" (Optatus, VI, vii). With regard to the exclusion of
suicides from the consecrated burial grounds it would appear
that some similar practice was familiar to the pagans even
before Christianity had spread throughout the empire. Thus there
is a well-known pagan inscription of Lanuvium of the year 133:
"Quisquis ex quâcunque causâ mortem sibi asciverit eius ratio
funeris non habebitur." Probably this was not so much a protest
of outraged morality as a warning that in the matter of burial
no man had a right to make himself prematurely a charge upon the
community. The time of burial is, generally speaking, between
sunrise and sunset; any other hour requires the permission of
the bishop (Ferraris, s.v., 216, 274, 279). For the rest the
diocesan statutes, regulations of the local ecclesiastical
authority, and custom are to be considered, also the civil law
and the public sanitary regulations.
THE RITUAL OF BURIAL
Speaking first of the usages of the Catholic Church at the
present day it will probably be convenient to divide the various
religious observances with which the Church surrounds the mortal
remains of her faithful children after death into three
different stages. The prayers and blessings which are provided
by the "Rituale" for use before death will best be considered
under the heading Death, Preparation for, but in the rites
observed after death we may distinguish first what takes place
in the house of the deceased and in bringing the body to the
church, secondly the function in the church and thirdly the
ceremony by the grave side. In practice, it is the exception for
the whole of the Church's ritual to be performed, especially in
the case of the burial of the laity in a large parish; but in
religious houses and where the facilities are at hand the
service is generally carried out completely.
With regard to the observances prescribed before the body is
conveyed to the church it may be noted that according to the
rubrics prefixed to the title "De exsequiis" in the "Rituale
Romanum" a proper interval (debitum temporis intervallum) ought
to elapse between the moment of death and the burial, especially
where death has occurred unexpectedly, in order that no doubt
may remain that life is really extinct. In southern climates it
is not unusual to celebrate the funeral the day after the
decease or even upon the day itself, but the practice both in
pagan and Christian times has varied greatly. Among the ancient
Romans it would seem that the bodies of persons of distinction
were commonly kept for seven days, while the poor were interred
the day after death. In these matters the Church has generally
been content to adopt the usages which were already in
possession. The washing of the corpse is so frequently spoken of
both in secular and monastic rituals as to wear almost the
aspect of a religious ceremony, but no special prayers are
assigned to it. Minute directions are given as to the clothing
of the dead in the case of all clergy. They are to be attired in
ordinary ecclesiastical costume and over this they are to wear
the vestments distinctive of their order. Thus the priest or
bishop must be clad in amice, alb, girdle, maniple, stole and
chasuble. His biretta should be placed upon his head and the
tonsure should be renewed. The deacon similarly wears his
dalmatic and stole, the subdeacon his tunicle, and the cleric
his surplice. In practice it is usual in the case of a priest to
place upon the coffin lid a chalice and paten at one end with
the biretta at the other; but this is not ordered in the rubrics
of the "Rituale". For the laity it is directed that the body
should be decently laid out, that a light should be kept
burning, that a small cross should, if possible, be placed in
the hands, failing which the hands are to be arranged in the
form of a cross, and that the body should occasionally be
sprinkled with holy water. The burning of more than one candle
beside the body is not directly enjoined for all, but it is
mentioned in the "Caeremoniale" in the case of a bishop and is
of general observance. On the other hand, it is mentioned that
the debita lumina, the candles which according to ancient custom
are carried in the procession, ought to be provided by the
parish gratuitously in the case of the very poor, and it is very
distinctly enjoined that in exacting such fees as custom
prescribes on these occasions the clergy ought sedulously to
avoid all appearance of avarice. It is also laid down that the
laity, even in the case of crowned heads, are never to be
carried to the grave by the hands of the clergy -- a
prescription which can be traced back to a synod of Seville in
1512 and is probably much older. But in the Early Church this
does not seem to have been observed, for we have several
recorded instances in which ladies who died in repute of
sanctity, as for example St. Paula or St. Macrina, were carried
to the grave by bishops.
The first stage in the obsequies of a deceased person according
to the rite now in use is the conveyance of the body to the
church. At an appointed hour the clergy are directed to assemble
in the church, a signal being given by the tolling of a bell.
The parish priest in surplice and black stole, or if he prefer
it wearing a black cope as well, goes to the house of the
deceased with the rest of the company, one cleric carrying the
cross and another a stoup of holy water. Before the coffin is
removed from the house it is sprinkled with holy water, the
priest with his assistants saying beside it the psalm De
Profundis with the antiphon Si iniquitates. Then the procession
sets out for the church. The cross-bearer goes first, religious
confraternities, if such there be, and members of the clergy
follow, carrying lighted candles, the priest walks immediately
before the coffin and the friends of the deceased and others
walk behind. As they leave the house the priest intones the
antiphon Exsultabunt Domino, and then the psalm Miserere is
recited or chanted in alternate verses by the cantors and
clergy. On reaching the church the antiphon Exsultabunt is
repeated, and as the body is borne to its place "in the middle
of the church" the responsory Subvenite (Come to his assistance
ye Saints of God, come to meet him ye Angels of the Lord, etc.)
is recited. The present rubric directs that if the corpse be
that of a layman the feet are to be turned towards the altar; if
on the other hand the corpse be that of a priest, then the
position is reversed, the head being towards the altar. Whether
this exceptional treatment of priests as regards position is of
early date in the West is open to considerable doubt. No earlier
example seems so far to have been quoted than the reference to
it in Burchard's "Diary" noted by Catalani. Burchard was the
master of ceremonies to Innocent VIII and Alexander VI, and he
may himself have introduced the practice, but his speaking of it
as the customary arrangement does not suggest this. On the other
hand, the medieval liturgists apparently know no exception to
their rule that both before the altar and in the grave the feet
of all Christians should be pointed to the East. This custom we
find alluded to by Bishop Hildebert at the beginning of the
twelfth century (P.L., CLXXI, 896), and its symbolism is
discussed by Durandus. "A man ought so to be buried", he says,
"that while his head lies to the West his feet are turned to the
East, for thus he prays as it were by his very position and
suggests that he is ready to hasten from the West to the East"
(Ration. Div. Off., VII, 35). But if Roman medieval practice
seems to offer no foundation for the distinction now made
between the priest and the layman, it is noteworthy that in the
Greek Church very pronounced differences have been recognized
from an early date. In the "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" of
Pseudo-Dionysius, which belong to the fifth century, we learn
that a priest or bishop was placed before the altar (epiprosthen
tou seiou thysiasteriou), while a monk or layman lay outside the
holy gates or in the vestibule. A similar practice is observed
to the present day. The corpse of a layman during the singing of
the "Panychis" (the equivalent of the "Vigiliae Mortuorum" or
Vigil of the Dead) is usually deposited in the narthex, that of
a priest or monk in the middle of the church, while in the case
of a bishop he is laid during a certain portion of the service
in different positions within the sanctuary, the body at one
point being placed behind the altar exactly in front of the
bishop's throne and the head towards the throne (Maltzew,
Begrabniss-Ritus, 278) It is possible that some imitation of
this practice in Dalmatia or in Southern Italy may have
indirectly led to the introduction of our present rubric. The
idea of both seems to be that the bishop (or priest) in death
should occupy the same position in the church as during life,
i.e. facing his people whom he taught and blessed in Christ's
name.
Supposing the body to have been brought to the church in the
afternoon or evening, the second portion of the obsequies, that
carried out in the church, may begin with the recital of the
Vespers for the Dead. This, however, is not prescribed in the
"Rituale Romanum", which speaks only of Matins and Lauds, though
Vespers are mentioned in the "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" in the
case of a bishop. If the Vespers for the Dead are said they
begin with the antiphon Placebo, and the Office of Matins, if we
exclude the invitatory, begins with the antiphon Dirige. For
this reason the "Placebo and Dirige," of which we so constantly
find mention in medieval English writers, mean simply the
Vespers and Matins for the Dead. It is from the latter of these
two words that the English term dirge is derived. Candles are
lighted round the coffin and they should be allowed to burn at
least during the continuance of the Office, Mass, and
Absolutions. Throughout the Office for the Dead each psalm ends
with Requiem aeternam (Eternal rest give unto them, O Lord, and
let perpetual light shine upon them) in the place of the Gloria
Patri. It is interesting perhaps to note here that the
liturgist, Mr. Edmund Bishop, after minute investigation has
come to the conclusion that in this familiar formula, Requiem
oeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis, we have a
blending of two distinct liturgical currents' "the second member
of the phrase expresses the aspiration of the mind and soul of
the Roman, the first the aspiration of the mind and soul of the
Goth" (Kuypers, Book of Cerne, 275). It is true that it has been
maintained that the words are borrowed from a passage in IV
Esdras (Apocrypha), ii, 34-35, but we may doubt if the
resemblance is more than accidental.
With regard to the Office and Mass which form the second portion
of the Exsequioe, the Matins after a preliminary invitatorium:
"Regem cui omnia vivunt, venite adoremus", consist of nine
psalms divided as usual into three nocturns by three sets of
lessons and responsories. The first nocturn, as already noted,
begins with the antiphon "Dirige, Domine Deus meus, in conspectu
tuo vitam meam", and is made up of the three psalms, Verba mea,
Ps. v, Domine ne in furore, Ps. vi, and Domine Deus meus, Ps.
vii, each having its own antiphon, which is duplicated. The
lessons both in this and in the following nocturns are all taken
from the Book of Job, chapters vii, x, xiii, xiv, xvii, and xix,
in which the sufferer expresses the misery of man's lot, but
above all his unalterable trust in God. The lessons are read
without the usual absolution and blessing, but each is followed
by a responsory, and some of these responsories in their
picturesque conciseness deserve to be reckoned among the most
striking portions of the liturgy. We may quote for example the
last responsory of the third nocturn which occurs again before
the absolution. It is this translated in the Roman Breviary of
the late Marquess of Bute:
Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death in that awful day when
the heavens and earth shall be shaken, and Thou shalt come to
judge the world by fire.
Verse. Quaking and dread take hold upon me, when I look for the
coming of the trial and the wrath to come.
Answer. When the heavens and the earth shall be shaken.
Verse. That day is a day of wrath, of wasteness and desolation,
a great day and exceeding bitter.
Answer. When Thou shalt come to judge the world by fire.
Verse. O Lord, grant them eternal rest, and let everlasting
light shine upon them.
Answer. Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death in that awful
day, when the heavens and the earth shall be shaken and Thou
shalt come to judge the world by fire.
There seems reason to believe that this responsory is not of
Roman origin (Batiffol, Roman Breviary, 198) but it is of
considerable antiquity. At present, if the whole three nocturns
(the second of which consists of Pss. xxii, xxiv, xxvi; and the
third of Pss. xxxix, xl, and xli) are not said owing to lack of
time or for any other cause, then another responsory, Libera me
de viis inferni, is sung in place of that just quoted. Lauds
follow immediately, in which the psalms Miserere and Te decet
hymnus replace those usually said at the beginning and the
Canticle of Ezechias is sung instead of the Benedicite. The
Benedictus is recited with a special antiphon from John, xi,
25-26. This is familiar to many as having been retained in the
burial service of the Church of England, "I am the resurrection
and the life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall
never die". Finally after certain preces follows the impressive
collect Absolve, which is also said in the Mass, "Absolve, we
beseech Thee, O Lord, the soul of thy servant N. that being dead
to this world he may live to Thee, and whatever sins he may have
committed in this life through human frailty, do Thou of Thy
most merciful goodness forgive; through our Lord Jesus Christ",
etc.
The "Rituale" directs that if all three nocturns of the office
cannot be said, it would be desirable to say at least the first.
But it is even more emphatic in urging that Mass should not be
omitted except on certain privileged festivals of the highest
class which exclude a Mass for the dead proesente cadavere, i.e.
even when the body is present. These days include the feasts of
Christmas, the Epiphany, Easter, the Ascension, Whitsunday,
Corpus Christi, The Annunciation, Assumption and Immaculate
Conception, Nativity of St. John Baptist, St. Joseph, Sts. Peter
and Paul, All Saints, the last three days of Holy Week, the
Quarant' Ore, or Forty Hours, and certain patronal feasts. On
all other days, roughly speaking, the Church not only permits
but greatly desires that the Holy Sacrifice should be offered
for the deceased as the most solemn part of the rite of
interment. To secure this the severer regulations of earlier
centuries have in many respects been greatly relaxed in recent
times. For example it is not now of obligation that the Mass
should be sung with music. In the case of poor people who cannot
defray the expenses incident to a Mass celebrated with
solemnity, a simple low Mass of Requiem is permitted even on
Sundays and other prohibited days, provided that the parochial
Mass of the Sunday be also said at another hour. Moreover this
one Missa in die obitus seu depositionis may still be offered in
such cases, even when on account of contagious disease or other
serious reason the body cannot be brought to the church. As in
the case of the Office, the Mass for the Dead is chiefly
distinguished from ordinary Masses by certain omissions. Some of
these, for example that of the Psalm Judica and of the
blessings, may be due to the fact that the Missa de Requie was
formerly regarded as supplementary to the Mass of the day. In
other cases, for instance in the absence of hymns from the
Office for the Dead, we may perhaps suspect that these funeral
rites have preserved the tradition of a more primitive age. On
the other hand, the suppression of the Gloria in excelsis, etc.,
as of the Gloria Patri seems to point to a sense of the
incongruity of joyful themes in the presence of God's searching
and inscrutable judgments. Thus a tractate of the eighth or
ninth century printed by Muratori (Lit. Rom. Vet., II, 391)
already directs that in the Vigils for the Dead "Psalms and
lessons with the Responsories and Antiphons belonging to Matins
are to be sung without Alleluia. In the Masses also neither
Gloria in exelsis Deo nor Alleluia shall be sung." (Cf. Ceriani,
Circa obligationem Officii Defunctorum, 9.)
In the early Christian ages, however, it would seem that the
Alleluia, especially in the East, was regarded as specially
appropriate to funerals. Another omission from the ordinary
ritual of high Mass is that of the kiss of peace. This ceremony
was always associated in idea with Holy Communion, and as
Communion was not formerly distributed to the faithful at Masses
for the Dead, the kiss of peace was not retained. A conspicuous
feature of the Requiem Mass is the singing of the sequence, or
hymn, "Dies irae". This masterpiece of medieval hymnology is of
late introduction, as it was probably composed by the Franciscan
Thomas of Celano in the thirteenth century. It was not designed
for its present liturgical use but for private devotion -- note
the singular number throughout voca me cum benedictis, quid sum
miser tunc dicturus, etc., as also the awkwardness of the added
pie Jesu Domine dona eis requiem, but the hymn appears printed
in the "Missale Romanum" of 1485, though apparently not in the
earlier edition of 1474. However the use of the "Dies irae" in
connection with the exsequioe mortuorum is much more ancient,
and Dr. Ebner has found it, musically noted as at present, in a
Franciscan Missal of the thirteenth century. (Ebner, Quellen und
Forschungen zur Geschichte des Missale Romanum, 120). During the
Mass it is customary, though not a matter of precept, to
distribute tapers of unbleached wax to the congregation or at
least to those assisting within the sanctuary. These are to be
lighted during the Gospel, during the latter part of the Holy
Sacrifice from the Elevation to the Communion, and during the
absolution which follows the Mass. As already remarked the
association of lights with Christian obsequies is very ancient,
and liturgists here recognize a symbolical reference to baptism
(the illumination, photismos) whereby Christians are made the
children of Light, as well as a concrete reminder of the oft
repeated prayer et lux perpetua luceat eis. (Cf. Thalhofer,
Liturgik, II, 529.)
After Mass follows the absolution or Absoute, to use the
convenient term by which the French designate these special
prayers for pardon over the corpse before it is laid in the
grave. These prayers of the Absoute, like those said by the
grave side, ought never to be omitted. The subdeacon bearing the
processional cross, and accompanied by the acolytes, places
himself at the head of the coffin (i.e. facing the altar in the
case of a layman, but between the coffin and the altar in the
case of a priest), while the celebrant, exchanging his black
chasuble for a cope of the same colour, stands opposite at the
foot. The assisting clergy are grouped around and the celebrant
without preamble begins at once to read the prayer Non intres in
judicium cum servo tuo, praying that the deceased "may deserve
to escape the avenging judgment, who, whilst he lived, was
marked with the seal of the holy Trinity". This is followed by
the responsory "Libera me Domine", which, as occurring in the
Matins for the Dead, has already been quoted above. Then after
the Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison the priest
says aloud the Pater Noster and while this is repeated in
silence by all, he makes the round of the coffin, sprinkling it
with holy water and bowing profoundly before the cross when he
passes it. After which, taking the thurible, he incenses the
coffin in like manner; where we may note that the use of incense
at funerals is derived from the earliest Christian centuries,
though no doubt our manner of waving the censer towards persons
and objects is relatively modern. Moreover it is possible that
the incense was originally employed on such occasions for
sanitary reasons. Finally after finishing the Pater Noster and
repeating one or two short versicles to which answer is made by
the clergy, the celebrant pronounces the prayer of absolution,
most commonly in the following form:
O God, Whose attribute it is always to have mercy and to spare, we
humbly present our prayers to Thee for the soul of Thy servant N.
which Thou has this day called out of this world, beseeching Thee
not to deliver it into the hands of the enemy, nor to forget it for
ever, but to command Thy holy angels to receive it, and to bear it
into paradise; that as it has believed and hoped in Thee it may be
delivered from the pains of hell and inherit eternal life through
Christ our Lord. Amen.
Although this prayer in its entirety cannot be surely traced to
an earlier date than the ninth century, it contains several
elements that recall the phraseology of primitive times. It is
to be found in most of our existing manuscripts of the Gregorian
Sacramentary. At the burial of bishops, cardinals, sovereigns,
etc., not one but five absolutions are pronounced according to
the forms provided in the "Pontificale Romanum". These are
spoken by five bishops or other "prelates", each absolution
being preceded by a separate responsory. In these solemn
functions the prayer just quoted is not said, but most of the
responsories and prayers used are borrowed from the Office for
the Dead or from the Masses in the Roman Missal. It may be noted
that all these absolutions are not in the declaratory but in the
deprecatory form, i.e. they are prayers imploring God's mercy
upon the deceased.
After the absolution the body is carried to the grave and as the
procession moves along the antiphon "In paradisum" is chanted by
the clergy or the choir. It runs thus: "May the angels escort
thee to paradise, may the martyrs receive thee at thy coming and
bring thee into the holy city Jerusalem. May the choir of angels
receive thee, and with Lazarus, who once was poor, mayst thou
have eternal rest." According to the rubric "the tomb
(sepulchrum) is then blessed if it has not been blessed
previously"; which has been ruled to mean that a grave newly dug
in an already consecrated cemetery is accounted blessed, and
requires no further consecration, but a mausoleum erected above
ground or even a brick chamber beneath the surface is regarded
as needing blessing when used for the first time. This blessing
is short and consists only of a single prayer after which the
body is again sprinkled with holy water and incensed. Apart from
this the service at the grave side is very brief. The priest
intones the antiphon: "I am the Resurrection and the Life",
after which the coffin is lowered into the grave and the
Canticle Benedictus is meanwhile recited or sung. Then the
antiphon is repeated entire, the Pater Noster is said secretly,
while the coffin is again sprinkled with holy water, and finally
after one or two brief responses the following ancient prayer is
said: "Grant this mercy, O Lord, we beseech Thee, to Thy servant
departed, that he may not receive in punishment the requital of
his deeds who in desire did keep Thy will, and as the true faith
here united him to the company of the faithful, so may Thy mercy
unite him above to the choirs of angels. Through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen."
Then with the final petition: "May his soul and the souls of all
the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace",
the little procession of cross-bearer, surpliced clerics, and
priest return to the sacristy reciting the De Profundis as they
go. In some places the custom prevails that the officiating
priest before retiring should offer the holy-water sprinkler to
the relatives of the deceased who are present, in order that
they may cast holy water upon the coffin in the grave. In others
it is usual for the priest himself and for all present to throw
down upon the coffin a handful of earth. This custom symbolical
no doubt of "dust to dust" is certainly ancient and even in the
"Rituale Romanum" a rubric is to be found prescribing that "in
obsequies which have of necessity to be performed only in
private and at the house of the deceased, blessed earth is put
into the coffin while the Canticle Benedictus is being said".
This no doubt is to be regarded as the nearest available
equivalent to interment in a consecrated grave. In other
localities, more particularly in Germany, it i[s] customary for
the priest to deliver a short discourse (Leichenrede) before
leaving the cemetery. This is the more appropriate because
nearly everywhere in Germany the civil law forbids the corpse to
be taken to the church except in the case of bishops and other
exalted personages. The result is that Mass and Office are
performed with a catafalque only, and seem even in those rare
cases in which they are retained to have nothing to do with the
burial, instead of forming, as they should do, its most
essential feature. On the other hand the service at the grave
side is apt to appear strangely brief and perfunctory unless
impressiveness be given to it by the discourse of the
officiating priest. It may be noted that many local customs are
still allowed to continue without interference in the ritual
observed by the grave side. Before the Reformation there was an
extraordinary variety of prayers and responsories commonly
recited over the grave especially in Germany. The extreme
simplicity of the "Rituale Romanum" represents no doubt a
reaction against what threatened to become an abuse. Of the
peculiar rites which so long survived locally, the Ritual of
Brixen may be taken as an illustration. In this when the priest
blesses the corpse with holy water, he is directed to say: "Rore
coelesti perfundat et perficiat animam tuam Deus". As the body
is lowered into the ground he says: "Sume terrâ quod tuum est,
sumat Deus quod suum est, corpus de terrâ formatum, spiritus de
coelo inspiratus est". Then the priest scatters earth upon the
body with a shovel three times, saying, "Memento homo quia
pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris". After this the Magnificat
is recited and the psalm Lauda anima mea Dominum, with various
prayers, and then with a wooden cross the priest signs the grave
in three places, at the head, in the middle, and at the feet,
with the words; "Signum Salvatoris Domini nostri Jesu Christi
super te, qui in hac imagine redemit te, nec permittat introire,
[and here he plants the wooden cross at the head of the grave]
angelum percutientem in aeternum". It is interesting to note
that after once more blessing the grave with holy water he
recites a prayer over the people in the vernacular. The clergy
and all others present also sprinkle holy water on the grave
before they depart.
THE BURIAL OF LITTLE CHILDREN
The "Rituale Romanum" provides a separate form of burial for
infants and children who have died before they have reached
years of discretion. It directs that a special portion of the
cemetery should be set aside for them and that either the bells
should not be tolled or that they should be rung in a joyous
peal. Further, custom prescribes that white and not black should
be used in token of mourning. The priest is bidden to wear a
white stole over his surplice and a crown of flowers or sweet
foliage is to be laid upon the child's brow. The processional
cross is carried, but without its staff. The body may be borne
to and deposited temporarily in the church, but this is not
prescribed as the normal arrangement and in any case no
provision is made for either Office or Mass. One or two psalms
of joyous import, e.g. the Laudate pueri Dominum (Ps. cxii), are
appointed to be said while the body is borne to the church or to
the cemetery, and holy water and incense are used to bless the
remains before they are laid in the ground. Two special prayers
are included in the ritual, one for use in the church, the other
by the grave side. The former, which is certainly ancient, runs
as follows: "Almighty and most compassionate God, Who upon all
little children that have been born again in the fountain of
Baptism, when they leave this world without any merits of their
own, straightway bestowest everlasting life, as we believe that
Thou has this day done to the soul of this little one, grant we
beseech Thee, O Lord, by the intercession of Blessed Mary ever
Virgin and of all Thy saints, that we also may serve Thee with
pure hearts here below and may consort eternally with these
blessed little ones in paradise, Through Christ our Lord, Amen."
On the way back to the church the Canticle Benedicite is
recited, and the prayer "Deus qui miro ordine angelorum
ministeria hominumque dispensas", which is the collect used in
the Mass of St. Michael's day, is said at the foot of the altar.
The cross without the handle which is carried in the procession
is considered to be symbolical of an incomplete life. Many other
peculiarities are prevalent locally. Thus in Rome in the
eighteenth century, as we learn from Catalani, the dead child
was generally clothed in the habit known as St. Philip Neri's.
This is black in colour but sprinkled all over with gold and
silver stars. A tiny biretta is placed upon the child's head and
a little cross of white wax in its hands. Miniature habits of
the different religious orders are also commonly used for the
same purpose.
HISTORY OF OUR PRESENT RITUAL
With regard to the burial of the dead in the early Christian
centuries we know very little. No doubt the first Christians
followed the national customs of those peoples amongst whom they
lived, in so far as they were not directly idolatrous. The final
kiss of farewell, the use of crowns of flowers, the intervals
appointed for recurring funeral celebrations, the manner of
laying out the body and bearing it to the grave, etc., show
nothing that is distinctive of the Christian Faith, even though
later ages found a pious symbolism in many of these things.
Moreover the use of holy water and incense (the latter
originally as a sort of disinfectant) was also no doubt
suggested by similar customs among the pagans around them.
Perhaps we should add that the funeral banquets of the pagans
were in some sense imitated by the agapoe or love-feasts of the
Christians which it seems to have been usual to celebrate in
early times (see Marucchi, Eléments d'archéologie chrétienne, I,
129), also that the anniversary Masses and "months minds" of the
Church undoubtedly replaced a corresponding pagan usage of
sacrifices. (See Dublin Review, July, 1907, p. 118.) But of the
existence of some distinctively religious service we have good
evidence at an early date. Tertullian refers incidentally to the
corpse of a woman after death being laid out cum oratione
presbyteri. St. Jerome in his account of the death of St. Paul
the Hermit speaks of the singing of hymns and psalms while the
body is carried to the grave as an observance belonging to
ancient Christian tradition. Again St. Gregory of Nyssa in his
detailed description of the funeral of St. Macrina, St.
Augustine in his references to his mother St. Monica, and many
other documents like the Apostolical Constitutions (Bk. VII) and
the "Celestial Hierarchy" of Pseudo-Dionysius make it abundantly
clear that in the fourth and fifth centuries the offering of the
Holy Sacrifice was the most essential feature in the last solemn
rites, as it remains to this day. Probably the earliest detailed
account of funeral ceremonial which has been preserved to us is
to be found in the Spanish Ordinals lately published by Dom
Ferotin. It seems to be satisfactorily established that the
ritual here described represents in substance the Spanish
practice of the latter part of the seventh century. We may
accordingly quote in some detail from "the Order of what the
clerics of any city ought to do when their bishop falls into a
mortal sickness". After a reference to Canon iii of the seventh
Council of Toledo (646) enjoining that a neighbouring bishop
should if possible be summoned, the directions proceed:
At what hour soever the bishop shall die whether by day or night the
bell (Signum) shall at once be rung publicly in the cathedral
(ecclesia seniore) and at the same time the bell shall ring in every
church within a distance of two miles.
Then while some of the clergy in turn recite or chant the psalms
earnestly and devoutly, the body of the bishop deceased is stripped
by priests or deacons. After washing the body . . . it is clothed
with his usual vestments according to custom, i.e. his tunic, his
breeches, and his stockings, and after this with cap (capello) and
face-cloth (sudario). Thereupon is put upon him an alb, and also a
stole (orarium) about his neck and before his breast as when a
priest is wont to say Mass. Also a cruet is placed in his hand. Then
the thumbs of his hands are tied with bands, that is with strips of
linen or bandages. His feet are also fastened in the same way. After
all this he is robed in a white chasuble (casulla). Then after
spreading beneath a very clean white sheet, the body is laid upon
the bier and all the while the priests, deacons and all the clergy
keep continually reciting or chanting and incense is always burned.
And in this wise he is laid in the choir of the church over which he
ruled, lights going before and following behind and then a complete
text of the gospels is laid upon his breast without anything to
cover it, but the gospel itself rests upon a cloth of lambswool
(super pallium agnavum -- this can hardly be the archiepiscopal
pallium in its technical sense) which is placed over his heart. And
so it must be that whether he die by night or day the recitation of
prayers or chanting of psalms shall be kept up continuously beside
him until at the fitting hour of the day Sacrifice may be offered to
God at the principal altar for his repose. Then the body is lifted
up by deacons, with the gospel book still lying on his breast, and
he is carried to the grave, lights going before and following after,
while all who are of the clergy sing the antiphons and responsories
which are consecrated to the dead (quoe solent de mortuis
decantare).
After this when Mass has again been celebrated in that church in
which he is to be buried, salt which has been exorcised is
scattered in the tomb by deacons, while all other religious
persons present sing the antiphon, In sinu Abrahae amici tui
conloca eum Domine. And then when incense has a second time been
offered over his body, the bishop who has come to bury him
advances and opening the dead man's mouth he puts chrism into
it, addressing him thus: 'Hoc pietatis sacramentum sit tibi in
participatione omnium beatorum'. And then by the same bishop is
intoned the antiphon: In pace in idipsum dormiam et requiescam.
And this one verse is said, "Expectans, expectavi Dominum et
respexit me'; and the chanting is so arranged that the verses
are said one by one while the first is repeated after each. When
Gloria has been said the antiphon is repeated but not a second
time.
Two impressive collects are then said and another prayer which
is headed "Benedictio". After which "the tomb is closed
according to custom and it is fastened with a seal".
Probably this rather elaborate ceremony was a type of the
funerals celebrated throughout Spain at this epoch even in the
case of the lower clergy and the laity. Of the final prayer we
are expressly told that in may also be used for the obsequies of
a priest. Further it is mentioned that when the priest is laid
out he should be clothed just as he was wont to celebrate Mass,
in tunic, shoes, breeches, alb, and chasuble.
The rite of putting chrism into the bishop's mouth, as mentioned
above, does not seem to be known else-where, but on the other
hand, the anointing the breast of a dead person with chrism was
formerly general in the Greek Church, and it seems to have been
adopted at Rome at an early date. Thus in certain directions for
burial and for Masses for the dead contained in the Penitential
of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury (c. 680) we meet the
following: "(1) According to the Church of Rome, it is the
custom, in the case of monks or religious men, to carry them
after their death to the church, to anoint their breasts with
chrism, and there to celebrate Masses for them; then to bear
them to the grave with chanting, and when they have been laid in
the tomb, prayer is offered for them; afterwards they are
covered in with earth or with a slab. (2) On the first, the
third, the ninth, and also the thirtieth day, let Mass be
celebrated for them, and furthermore, let this be observed after
a year has passed, if it be wished."
It seems natural to conjecture that the Spanish custom of
putting the chrism into the mouth of the dead may have been
meant to replace the practice which certainly prevailed for a
while in Rome of administering the Blessed Eucharist either at
the very moment of death or of leaving it with the corpse even
when life was extinct. A clear example of this is forthcoming in
the "Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great" (II, xxiv,) and see the
Appendix on the subject in Cardinal Rampolla's "Santa Melania
Giuniore" (p. 254). There is some reason to believe that the
inscription Christus hic est (Christ is here), or its
equivalent, occasionally found on tomb-stones (see Leblant,
Nouveau Recueil, 3) bears reference to the Blessed Eucharist
placed on the tongue of the deceased. But this practice was soon
forbidden.
The custom of watching by the dead (the wake) is apparently very
ancient. In its origin it was either a Christian observance
which was attended with the chanting of psalms, or if in a
measure adopted from paganism the singing of psalms was
introduced to Christianize it. In the Middle Ages among the
monastic orders the custom no doubt was pious and salutary. By
appointing relays of monks to succeed one another orderly
provision was made that the corpse should never be left without
prayer. But among secular persons these nocturnal meetings were
always and everywhere an occasion of grave abuses, especially in
the matter of eating and drinking. Thus to take a single example
we read among the Anglo-Saxon canons of Ælfric, addressed to the
clergy: "Ye shall not rejoice on account of men deceased nor
attend on the corpse unless ye be thereto invited. When ye are
thereto invited then forbid ye the heathen songs (haethenan
sangas) of the laymen and their loud cachinnations; nor eat ye
nor drink where the corpse lieth therein, lest ye be imitators
of the heathenism which they there commit" (Thorpe, Ancient Laws
and Institutes of England, 448). We may reasonably suppose that
the Office for the Dead, which consists only of Vespers, Matins,
and Lauds, without Day-hours, originally developed out of the
practice of passing the night in psalmody beside the corpse. In
the tenth Ordo Romanus which supplies a description of the
obsequies of the Roman clergy in the twelfth century we find the
Office said early in the morning, but there is no mention of
praying beside the corpse all night. In its general features
this Roman Ordo agrees with the ritual now practised, but there
are a good many minor divergences. For example the Mass is said
while the Office is being chanted; the Absoute at the close is
an elaborate function in which four prelates officiate,
recalling what is now observed in the obsequies of a bishop, and
the service by the grave side is much more lengthy than that
which now prevails. In the earliest Ambrosian ritual (eighth or
ninth century) which Magistretti (Manuale Ambrosianum, Milan,
1905, I, 67 sqq.) pronounces to be certainly derived from Rome
we have the same breaking up of the obsequies into stages, i.e.
at the house of the deceased, on the way to the church, at the
church, from the church to the grave, and at the grave side,
with which we are still familiar. But it is also clear that
there was originally something of the nature of a wake
(vigilioe) consisting in the chanting of the whole Psalter
beside the dead man at his home (Magistretti, ib., I, 70).
A curious development of the Absoute, with its reiterated
prayers for pardon, is to be found in the practice (which seems
to have become very general in the second half of the eleventh
century) of laying a form of absolution upon the breast of the
deceased. This is clearly enjoined in the monastic constitutions
of Archbishop Lanfranc and we have sundry historical examples of
it. (Cf. Thurston, Life of St. Hugh of Lincoln, 219.) Sometimes
a rude leaden cross with a few words scratched thereupon was
used for the purpose and many such have been recovered in
opening tombs belonging to this period. In one remarkable
example, that of Bishop Godfrey of Chichester (1088), the whole
formula of absolution may be found in the same indicative form
which meets us again in the so-called "Pontifical of Egbert". It
is noteworthy that in the Greek Church to this day a long paper
of absolution, now usually a printed form, is first read over
the deceased and then put into his hand and left with him in the
grave.
The only other point among the many peculiar features of
medieval ritual which seems to claim special notice here is the
elaborate development given to the offertory in the funeral of
illustrious personages. Not only on such occasions were very
generous offerings made in money and in kind, with a view, it
would seem, of benefiting the soul of the deceased by
exceptional generosity, but it was usual to lead his war-horse
up the church fully accoutred and to present it to the priest at
the altar rails, no doubt to be afterwards redeemed by a money
payment. The accounts of solemn obsequies in early times are
full of such details and in particular of the vast numbers of
candles burned upon the hearse; this word hearse in fact came
into use precisely from the resemblance which the elaborate
framework erected over the bier and bristling with candles bore
to a harrow (hirpex, hirpicem). Of the varying and protracted
services by the grave side, which at the close of the Middle
Ages were common in many parts of Germany and which in some
cases lasted on until a much later period, something has already
been said.
RITUAL OF THE GREEK CHURCH
The full burial service of the Greek Church is very long and it
will be sufficient here briefly to call attention to one or two
points in which it bears a close resemblance to the Latin Rite.
With the Greeks as with the Latins we find a general use of
lighted candles held by all present in their hands, as also holy
water, incense and the tolling of bells. With the Greeks as in
the Western Communion, after a relatively short service at the
house of the deceased, the corpse is borne in procession to the
church, and deposited there while the Pannychis, a mournful
service of psalmody, is recited or sung. In the burial of a
bishop the Holy Sacrifice or divine liturgy is offered up, and
there is in any case a solemn absolution pronounced over the
body before it is borne to the grave. Black vestments are
usually worn by the clergy, and again, as with us, the dead man,
if an ecclesiastic, is robed as he would have been robed in life
in assisting at the altar. There are, however, a good many
features peculiar to the Eastern Church. A crown, in practice a
paper band which represents it, is placed upon the dead layman's
head. The priest is anointed with oil and his face is covered
with the aer, the veil with which the sacred species are covered
during the Holy Sacrifice. Also the open Gospel is laid upon his
breast as in the early Spanish ordinal. The Alleluia is sung as
part of the service and a symbolical farewell is taken of the
deceased by a last kiss. Upon the altar stands a dish with a
cake made of wheat and honey, emblematic of the grain which
falling to the ground dies and bringeth forth much fruit.
Moreover many difference are made in the service according as
the dead person is layman, monk, priest, or bishop, and also
according to the ecclesiastical season, for during paschal time
white vestments are worn and another set of prayers are said.
The burial rite of the Greeks may be seen in Goar, "Euchologium
Graecorum" (Paris, 1647), 423 sqq.; also in the new Russian
edition by Al. Dmitrieoski (Kiev, 1895-1901). For the law of the
Church of England concerning burial, see Blunt-Phillimore "The
Book of Church Law" (London, 1899), 177-87, and 512-17, text of
Burial Laws Amendment Act of 1880.
BURIAL CONFRATERNITIES
It would take us too far to go into this subject at length. Even
from the period of the catacombs such associations seem to have
existed among the Christians and they no doubt imitated to some
extent in their organization the pagan collegia for the same
purpose. Through-out the Middle Ages it may be said that the
guilds to a very large extent were primarily burial
confraternities; at any rate the seemly carrying out of the
funeral rites at the death of any of their members together with
a provision of Masses for his soul form an almost invariable
feature in the constitutions of such guilds. But still more
directly to the purpose we find certain organizations formed to
carry out the burial of the dead and friendless as a work of
charity. The most celebrated of these was the "Misericordia" of
Florence, believed to have been instituted in 1244 by Pier
Bossi, and surviving to the present day. It is an organization
which associates in this work of mercy the members of all ranks
of society. Their self-imposed task is not limited to escorting
the dead to their last resting-place, but they discharge the
functions of an ambulance corps, dealing with accidents as they
occur and carrying the sick to the hospitals. When on duty the
members wear a dress which completely envelops and disguises
them Even the face is hidden by a covering in which only two
holes are left for eyes. See Cemetery; Cremation; Requiem.
Catalani, Commentarius in Rituale Romanum (1756); Thalhofer,
Liturgik, II, Pt. II; Idem, in Kirchenlex., s.v.; Binterim,
Denkwurdigkeiten (Mainz, 1838), VI, Pt. III, 362-514; Martene,
De antiquis Ecclesioe ritibus, II and IV; Ruland, Geschichte der
kirchlichen Leichenfeier (Ratisbon, 1902); Alberti, De sepultura
ecclesiastica (1901); Proces, La sepulture dans l'eglise
catholique, in Precis historiques (Brussels, 1882); Murcier, La
sepulture chretienne en France (Paris, 1855); Probst, Die
Exsequien (Mainz, 1856); Marucchi, Elements d' archeologie
chret, (Rome, 1899), I, 129-131; Petrides, in Dict. d' arch. et
lit. s.v. Absoute. On the Canon Law of burial, see especially
Lex, Das kirchliche Begrabnissrecht (Ratisbon, 1904); also
Sagmuller, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1904), Pt. III; Ferraris,
Bibliotheca, s.v. sepultura; Von Scherer, Kirchenrecht, II, 601.
On Burial in the Greek Church: Maltzew, Begrabniss-Ritus
(Berlin, 1896). On Absolution Crosses: Chevreux, in Bulletin
archeol. (Paris, 1904), 391-408; Cochet, La Normandie
souterraine; Idem, Sepultures gauloises (Paris, 1855 and 1857),
71 sqq.; Kraus, Kunst und Alterthum in Lothringen (Strasburg,
1889), 604-612. See also the bibliography of the article
Cemetery.
HERBERT THURSTON
Jean Buridan
Jean Buridan
French scholastic philosopher of the fourteenth century, b. at
Béthune, in the district of Atois towards the end of the
thirteenth century; date of death unknown. He studied at the
University of Paris under the Nominalist William of Occam,
became professor in the faculty of arts, procurator of the
Picardy "Nation", and (in 1327) rector of the university. In
1345, he was one of the ambassadors sent by the university to
the papal court at Avignon. He is also said to have assisted in
founding the University of Vienna. It is probable, however, that
Buridan never went to Vienna, for it is certain that he was in
Paris in 1358, and Father Denifle has shown (Chartul. Univ.,
Paris, II, 646) that the University of Vienna was not founded
until 1365, when Buridan was so old that he could hardly have
undertaken such a journey. His principal works are "Compendium
Logicae", "Summa de Dialecticâ", and "Commentaries" on the works
of Aristotle, the most important of the last being on the
"Politics". A complete edition was published by Dullard, Paris,
1500, and has frequently been reprinted, e.g. Oxford, 1637,
London, 1641.
Buridan was not a theologian. In philosophy he belonged to the
Nominalist, or Terminist school of Occam, to which he adhered in
spite of reiterated condemnation. He adhered, also, to that
peculiar form of scepticism which appeared in Scholastic
philosophy at that time, and which arose from the growing sense
of the inadequacy of reason to solve the highest problems of
thought. In his "Compendium Logicae" he developed at length the
art of finding the middle term of a demonstration, and this, in
the course of time (it is first mentioned in 1514), came to be
known as "The Bridge of Asses", i.e. the bridge by which stupid
scholars were enabled to pass from the minor or major, to the
middle, term of syllogism.. Still better known is the phrase
"Buridan's Ass", which refers to the "case" of a hungry donkey
placed between two loads of hay, equal as to quantity and
quality and equally distant. The animal so placed, argued the
dialectician, could never decide to which load of hay he should
turn, and, in consequencs, would die of hunger. The "case" is
not found in Buridan's writings (though the problem it proposes
is to be found in Aristotle), and may well have been invented by
an opponent to show the absurdity of Buridan's doctrine.
That doctrine began by denying the distinction between the
different faculties of the soul. Will and intellect, said
Buridan, are the same. Hence, to say that the will is free in
any sense except that in which the intellect also is free, is to
say that the will is freer than itself. The freedom of the will
is the freedom of the whole soul. Human freedom consists, then,
in the power of choosing between two or more desirable
alternatives (libertas oppositionis). When the intellect
presents one alternative as better (higher) than the other, the
will must choose the former. When the will presents two
alternatives as equally desirable, there can be no choice.
(Here, probably, the opponent introduced the example of the ass,
to ridicule Buridan's position.) The will, however, has still an
expedient. It can postpone its decision, direct the intellect to
consider one alternative only, and when the other alternative,
even though it be better (higher), has dropped out of
consciousness, the will can come to a decision and choose, if,
indeed, its act can now be called a choice at all. Buridan,
therefore, maintains that in a conflict of motives the stronger
motive always prevails--the will is "determined" by the
strongest motive. He is not a voluntarist. The will, he says, is
inferior to the intellect, because the former presupposes the
action of the latter, and depends on it. And it is by means of
the intellect, and not by means of the will, that man lays hold
of supreme happiness.
Stockl, Gesch. der Phil. des Mittelalters (Mainz, 1865), II,
1023 sqq.; Id., Lehrb. der Gesch.der Phil. (Mainz, 1888), I,
478; tr. Finlay (Dublin, 1903), 427; Turner, Hist. of Phil.
(Boston, 1903), 408; Ueberweg, Gesch. der Phil. (Berlin, 1905),
II, 347; tr. Morris (New York, 1890), I, 465.
WILLIAM TURNER
Jean Levesque de Burigny
Jean Lévesque de Burigny
Historian, b. at Reims, 1692; d. at Paris, 1785. In 1713, with
his brothers, Champeaux and Lévesque de Pouilly, he began to
compile a dictionary of universal knowledge, a kind of
encyclopedia, which comprised twelve large manuscript folios,
and afforded Burigny ample material for his subsequent works. In
1718, at The Hague, he worked with Saint- Hyacinthe on "L'Europe
savante", in twelve volumes, of which he contributed at least
one-half. On his return to Paris, he devoted his time to
historical research and published several works which stamped
him as a conscientious scholar. Burigny, although sharing the
ideas of the philosophers of his time, was by no means an
extremist. He was a modest, peace-loving man, whose only
ambition was to be a scholar, and his works show a great amount
of learning; some, for instance his lives of Grotius and
Erasmus, give very interesting data not elsewhere found. Among
his works are: "Traité de l'autorité du pape" (Paris, 1782)
which reduces papal authority to a primacy of honour, "Théologie
païenne" (Paris, 1754); "Histoire générale de Sicile" (The
Hague, 1745); "Histoire des róvolutions de l'empire de
Constantinople" (The Hague, 1750); "Traité de Porphyre touchant
l'abstinence de la chair, avec la vie de Plotin" (tr. from
Greek; Paris, 1740); "Vie de Bossuet" (Paris, 1761); "Vie du
cardinal Duperron" (Paris, 1768).
Dacier, Eloge de Burigny (Paris, 1786); Walckenaer, Recueil de
notices historiques (Paris, 1850); Constantin, in Dict. de
theol. cath., II, 1264-65.
PIERRE J. MARIQUE
Franz Burkard
Franz Burkard
The name of two celebrated German jurists. One died suddenly at
Rain, 9 December 1539. He began to teach canon law at the
University of Ingoldstadt in 1519, where he stoutly opposed
every endeavor to introduce Lutheranism. In the trial which
sentenced Andreas Seehofer, who had taught the new doctrine, to
retire to a monastery, Franz and his brother Peter, a professor
at the same institution, were the chief prosecutors. As this
action was resented by the Lutherans, he defended himself before
the university with John Eck and Hauer. The other d. at Bonn, 6
August, 1584. For many years he served the Bavarian chancellor,
August Loesch of Petersdorf, as legal advisor. Later the Elector
of Cologne, Ernest of Bavaria, made him his private counsellor
and chancellor. His stanch defence of Catholicity merited the
praise of Blessed Peter Canisius. To quell the religious war
resulting from the declaration of tolerance for Protestant
worship, a volume over his name, "De Autonomiâ", appeared at
Munich in 1586. Its real author, the private secretary of the
king, Andreas Erstenberger, in order to save his name, position,
and family, was induced by William V of Bavaria to conceal his
identity behind the name of the deceased Burkard, as Rudolph II
would not countenance any opposition to the Protestants. The
book was bitterly assailed by Protestants, but its main
positions have not been refuted.
Prantl, Geschichte der Universitat in Ingoldstadt, etc., I,
passim; Schreiber, Geschichte Bayerns, II, 587; Jannsen,
Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, V, 421-428.
THOS. M. SCHWERTNER
Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke
First Vicar Apostolic of Nova Scotia, b. in the parish of
Maryborough, County Kildare, Ireland, in 1753; d. at Halifax,
Nova Scotia, 1820. He was compelled by existing political
conditions in Ireland to pursue his studies in Paris, where his
talents and character gave promise of his future career.
Ordained priest, he returned to his native diocese. Here trouble
had just arisen over the appointment of a vicar-general, and
Father Burke was blamed by some partisans for espousing the
cause of his superior. The unpleasant conditions led young Burke
to follow the advice of Dr. Carpenter, Archbishop of Dublin, and
go to Canada. He arrived in Quebec in the summer of 1786, and in
September of that year was made professor of philosophy and
mathematics in the seminary of Quebec. His work in the seminary
led to his appointment as a director of that institution, but he
craved for missionary work north and west of the Great Lakes,
where, in scattered villages, there were many Catholics who had
not seen a missionary since the conquest (1759). In 1794 he
gained his object and was sent into the missionary field with
the title of Vicar-General and Superior of the Missions of Upper
Canada. For seven years he laboured faithfully, enduring all the
hardships of a pioneer missionary priest; and he suffered, too,
from lack of sympathy and support in his work. He saw clearly
and made known to his ecclesiastical superiors the loss to
religion resulting from race prejudices and misunderstandings.
His plain statements made in the cause of religion and truth
brought him enemies and many accusations. He met them fearlessly
and these trials but prepared him for his important work of the
future as Vicar-General of Nova Scotia, i.e. the ecclesiastical
direction of most of the English-speaking population of Canada.
He went to Halifax, Nova Scotia, as Vicar-General of Quebec in
1801, was made Vicar-General of Nova Scotia in 1815, and
consecrated Bishop of Zion in 1818. The work done by this
prelate for religion, for education, and for the State in Nova
Scotia, during the first twenty years of the nineteenth century
are fully treated in the work (quoted below) of one of his
successors. The Protestant historian Campbell thus closes his
biographical sketch of Bishop Burke: "The Dominion of Canada in
its wide extent has seen few, if any, of its prelates who died
more respected and regretted by all classes; more beloved and
idolized by his own flock; and whose memory as a great,
enlightened, and liberal-minded prelate is looked up to with so
much veneration." His most important writings are "The First
Principles of Christianity" and "The Ministry of the Church"
(Dublin, 1817).
ALEXANDER MCNEIL
Thomas Burke
Thomas Burke
(THOMAS DE BURGO)
Bishop of Ossory, b. at Dublin, Ireland, about 1709; d. at
Kilkenny, 25 September, 1776. He went to Rome in 1723 and there
was placed under the care of his namesake and kinsman, a
Dominican, Father Thomas Burke, who prepared him for admission
into the order. A dispensation was obtained from the Sacred
Congregation, and on 14 June, 1724, he was clothed with the
Dominican habit before he had attained his fifteenth year. Young
Burke showed special aptitude for study and with the permission
of the master general was allowed to begin his course during his
novitiate. Two years were given to philosophy and five to
theology. So marked was his progress in studies and letters that
he was singled out, even though yet a novice, by special marks
of affection from Benedict XIII. During the reconstruction of
St. Sixtus' in 1727 and 1728, the pontiff visited the Irish
Dominicans once a week, taking part in their community
exercises, becoming familiar with the friars and especially with
Burke. He was gradually promoted to the highest theological
honours of the order, being charged successively with all the
official duties in a regular Dominican studium. He held the
office of regent of studies for six years. In 1742 the Master
General, Thomas Ripoll, personally conferred on him the degree
of Master of Theology. The following year he returned to Dublin
where he took up the work of the ministry. A general chapter of
the order held at Bologna in 1748 passed an ordinance that in
all the immediately following provincial chapters a
historiographer should be appointed in every province. This
order did not reach Ireland from Rome in time for the provincial
chapter which was convened the following year at Dublin, and to
which assembly Father Burke had been elected by his brethren as
Definitor. At the subsequent chapter, however, of 1753 he was
appointed historian of his province. The same honour of
Definitor was conferred again in 1757.
Father Burke while in Rome was commissioned by the Irish clergy,
through Bishop MacDonough of Kilmore, to obtain from the Holy
See ten new offices of Irish saints. After his return to
Ireland, he was entrusted with a similar commission by the
Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Rev. John Linegar, and the
Bishops of Ireland for fourteen other feasts of the Irish
saints. The decrees were given respectively 8 July, 1741 and 1
July, 1747. Both original documents are preserved in the
archives of St. Clement's, Rome. Father Burke was promoted by
Clement XIII in 1759, to the See of Ossory which he governed for
seventeen years. His talents, learning, culture, and piety
fitted him for the pastoral office, united with his noble and
fearless character. An accurate portrait of Bishop Burke is
possessed by the Dominican nuns of Drogheda, Ireland. He is
known to posterity more on account of his learned work "Hibernia
Dominicana", than by any other claim. The work was nominally
published at Cologne, but in reality it came from the press of
Edmund Finn of Kilkenny, in 1762. The author gave to it four
years of incessant labour, and in 1772 he added a "Supplementum"
which was a vindication of Rinuccini, the nuncio of Pope
Innocent X, of the charges brought against him by the supreme
council of Confederate Catholics during his residence in
Ireland. Question of the oath of allegiance and fear of
subverting "that fidelity and submission which we acknowledge
ourselves to owe from duty and from gratitude to his Majesty
King George III" caused seven of the Irish Bishops to condemn
the "Hibernia Dominicana" and "Supplementum". (For defense of
Bishop Burke see Coleman, Ir. Eccl. Record.) "Promptuarium
dogmatico canonico morale", a work of the celebrated Spanish
Dominican Larrago, enlarged and accommodated to its day by
Father Burke, was about to be published in 1753 when his
appointment as historian interrupted it.
JOHN T. MCNICHOLAS
Thomas Nicholas Burke
Thomas Nicholas Burke
A celebrated Dominican orator, b. 8 September, 1830, in Galway;
d. 2 July, 1882, at Tallaght, Ireland. His parents, though in
moderate circumstances, gave him a good education. He was placed
at first under the care of the Patrician Brothers, and was
afterwards sent to a private school. An attack of typhoid fever
when he was fourteen years old, and the harrowing scenes of the
famine year (1847), had a sobering effect on the quick-witted
and studious lad, and turned his thoughts into more serious
channels. Toward the end of that year he asked to be received
into the Order of Preachers, and was sent to Perugia in Italy,
to make his novitiate. On 29 December, he was clothed there in
the habit of St. Dominic and received the name of Thomas.
Shortly afterward he was sent to Rome to begin his studies in
the Convent of the Minerva. He passed thence to the Roman
convent of Santa Sabina, where he won such esteem by his
fervour, regularity, and cheerfulness, that his superiors sent
him, while yet a student, as novice-master to Woodchester, the
novitiate of the resuscitated English Province. He was ordained
priest 26 March, 1853, and on 3 August, 1854, defended publicly
the theses in universâ theologiâ, and took him Dominican degree
of Lector. Early in the following year Father Burke was recalled
to Ireland to found the novitiate of the Irish Province at
Tallaght, near Dublin. In 1859 he preached his first notable
sermon on "Church Music"; it immediately lifted him into fame.
Elected Prior of Tallaght in 1863, he went to Rome the following
year as Rector of the Dominican Convent of San Clemente, and
attracted great attention in the Eternal City by his preaching.
He returned to Ireland in 1867, and delivered his oration on
O'Connell at Glasnevin before fifty thousand people. Bishop
Leahy took him as his theologian to the Vatican Council in 1870,
and the following year he was sent as Visitor to the Dominican
convents in America. His fame had preceded him, and he was
besieged with invitations to preach and lecture. The seats were
filled hours before he appeared, and his audiences overflowed
the churches and halls in which he lectured. In New York he
delivered the discourses in refutation of the English historian
Froude. In eighteen months he gave four hundred lectures,
exclusive of sermons, the proceeds amounting to nearly $400,000.
His mission was a triumph, but the triumph was dearly won, and
when he arrived in Ireland on 7 March, 1873, he was spent and
broken. Yet during the next ten years we find him preaching
continually in Ireland, England, and Scotland. He began the
erection of the church in Tallaght in 1882, and the following
May preached a series of sermons in the new Dominican church,
London. In June he returned to Tallaght in a dying condition,
and preached his last sermon in the Jesuit church, Dublin, in
aid of the starving children of Donegal. A few days afterwards
he breathed forth his soul to God, in Whose service he had
laboured so valiantly. Father Burke possessed all the qualities
of a great orator; a rich, flexible, harmonious voice, great
dramatic power, and a vivid imagination. He is buried in the
church of Tallaght, now a memorial to him. Many of his lectures
and sermons were collected and published in various editions in
New York, as were also the four lectures in reply to Froude
(1872) the latter with the title "The Case of Ireland Stated".
STANISLAUS HOGAN
Walter Burleigh
Walter Burleigh
(Also: Walter Burley; Burlæus).
Friar Minor and medieval philosopher, b. in 1275 and d. in 1337.
It is impossible to determine with certainty the Beuleigh was a
Franciscan, as some say that he was an Augustinian; and
Franciscans "can do no less than lay a claim to him", as
Parkinson remarks, "leaving the matter to be disputed by such as
are disposed to contend". He was preceptor to Edward, Prince of
Wales, who afterward ascended the throne as Edward III in 1327.
At Oxford he was the school-fellow of William of Occam, both
being disciples of Duns Scotus. He taught at Paris for some time
and was known as the Plain and Perspicuous Doctor (Doctor planus
et perspicuus). Burleigh figured prominently in the dispute
concerning the nature of universals. Following the doctrine of
Scotus in this regard, he became, on the one hand, the adversary
of William of Occam, the father of nominalism--that is, the
doctrine that holds that universals are empty words, or nomina,
having no real existence whatever; and on the other, the
opponent of the extreme realists who taught the universal, as
such, has actual or formal existence outside the mind. In this
connection it should be remembered that, as in the question of
universals, so in others of greater importance in philosophy,
Scotus can be understood and interpreted only by one who has
mastered by diligent and well-directed study the peculiar
terminology of the Subtle Doctor and grasped his sometimes
abstruse concepts of metaphysical principles.
Scotus was undoubtedly a moderate realist, that is, he taught
that the universale in actu, to use his own words, non est nisi
in intellectu, though having a foundation in extra-mental
reality; and Burleigh followed his master. But when the
disciples of Scotus endeavoured to construct on his principles a
doctrine of exaggerated realism, burleigh's opposition to this
mistaken interpretation of Scotus'doctrine was vigorous and
uncomprimising. He then, at least in this point, was the
adversary of the Scotists rather than of Scotus himself.
Burleigh's only work on theology is a commentary "in Magistrum
Sententiarum". His philosophical writings include (1) "De
intentione et remissione formarum"; (2) "Exposito in libros
Ethicorum Aristotelis"; (3) "De vitis et moribus philosophorum";
(4) "De potentiis animae"; (5) "Summa totius logicae"; (6)
"Commentaria in libros Posteriorum Aristotelis"; (7) "Tractatus
de materia et forma et relativis"; (8) "De fluxu et refluxu
maris anglicani".
Parkinson, Collectanea Anglo-Minoritica, ad. an. 1337 (London,
1726), 151; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1893, IV, 425;
Jeiler, in Kirchenlex., II, 1542.
STEPHEN M. DONOVAN
Burlington
Burlington
(Burlingtonensis).
Diocese established 14 July, 1853; comprises the whole State of
Vermont, U.S.A., an area of 9135 square miles. The territory now
making up the State of Vermont was not only discovered but first
settled by Catholics. Champlain bestowed on the State in 1609
the name it bears and the first Mass said within its boundaries
was offered up in 1666 by a Sulpician priest from Montreal, in
the chapel of the little fort of St. Anne on Isle Lamothe --now
the site of a shrine of pilgrimage--where a few soldiers upheld
the authority of the King of France. In 1668 Bishop Laval of
Quebec went there and thus gave to Vermont the honour of the
first episcopal visitation and ministration in New England and
probably in the United States. During the years that followed,
Jesuit and other missionaries traversed the State and left the
evidences of their zeal in the converted Indians and the
Catholic settlers in many villages. In 1734 there were fourteen
Catholic families grouped about a chapel at Alburgh. After
Canada had been ceded to the English in 1760 many New England
emigrants went to Vermont, but the Bishops of Quebec still
continued to look after the Catholics there. When the Diocese of
Boston was created in 1810 the State of Vermont was included
within its jurisdiction, and the venerable Father Matignon of
Boston visited Burlington in 1815 and found about one hundred
Catholics Canadians there without a priest or church. Father
Migneault of Chambly, Canada was a frequent visitor for a number
of years, ministering to the scattered families along the
border. Father James Fitton of Boston was another pioneer
priest. The first resident priest in Vermont was Rev. Jeremiah
O'Callaghan, a native of Cork, Ireland, whose eccentric notions
on the question of usury got him into difficulty with the bishop
of his native diocese; he was sent to Burlington in 1830 by
Bishop Fenwick and remained there until 1854, his influence and
pastoral zeal radiating far and wide. He built St. Peter's
church, Burlington in 1832. He died at Holyoke, Massachusetts,
23, February, 1861. In 1837 the Rev. John D. Daly, another
eccentric but learned man, commenced to care for the missions in
the southern part of the State and laboured until 1854, when he
retired to New York where he died in 1870. Notable also among
the priests ministering in the State during this early period
were Fathers William Ivers, George Hamilton, Edward McGowan,
James Walsh, M. Petithomme, P. Drolet, and M. Chevailier. In
1843, the Catholics of the State numbered 4940, but the building
of railroads and the establishment of numerous public works soon
brought a steady increase.
In 1853 on the petition of the bishops of the Provence of New
York, the pope erected Vermont into a diocese with Burlington as
the titular city. The Very Rev. Louis De Goesbriand, then
Vicar-General of the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio, was named the
first bishop and consecrated in New York by Archbishop Bedini,
30 October, 1853. He was born 4 August, 1816, at Saint-Urbain,
Finistère, France. He studied at Asint-Sulpice, Paris, and was
ordained priest at St. Louis, U.S.A., 30 July, 1840. He found on
his arrival in Vermont five priests, ten churches, and about
20,000 Catholics. In January, 1855, he went to Europe to secure
priests in Ireland and France and with the aid of those who
answered his appeal for volunteers, new parishes were organized,
churches built, schools opened, and the work of evangelizing
went on vigorously. The first diocesan synod was held in
Burlington, 4 and 5 October, 1855, at which nine priests
attended. On 17 July, 1890, Bishop De Goesbriand celebrated the
golden jubilee of his ordination and in 1892 he asked for a
coadjutor. The choice fell on the Rev. John Stephen Michaud,
then pastor at Bennington, the son of an Irish mother and
Canadian father and born at Burlington, 24 Novenber, 1843. He
made his studies at St. Joseph's Seminary, Troy, New York, and
was ordained priest, 7 June, 1873. He was consecrated titular
Bishop of Modra and coadjutor of Burlington, 29 June, 1892.
Bishop De Goesbriand retired to live in the Orphan Asylum at
Burlington and died 3 November, 1899, the dean of the American
hierarchy. Bishop Michaud immediately succeeded to the see.
Bishop De Goesbriand was one of the prelates who attended the
Vatican Council in 1869.
The religious communities now represented in the diocese are the
Fathers of St. Edmond (C.S.E.), the Brothers of St. Gabriel,
Sisters of Charity of Providence, Sisters of the Holy Cross and
of the Seven Dolours, Sisters of the Holy Ghost, Ladies of St.
Joseph, Sisters of St. Joseph, Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph,
Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame,, of
the Presentation, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of the
Assumption. There are in the diocese 99 priests, 88 secular, 11
regular; 95 churches, 70 with resident pastors, and 27 missions
with churches; 20 stations; 275 women in religious communities;
15 ecclesiastical students in the diocesan seminary; 3 academies
for boys, 9 for girls; 21 parish schools with 6096 pupils; 2
orphanage schools with 260 pupils, 220 orphans in the diocesan
asylum; 2 colleges for boys; 2 hospitals; Catholic population
estimated 75,953; children under Catholic care 6175. The
hospital at Winooski Park is named after Fanny Allen, daughter
of General Ethan Allen of Revolutionary fame, and the first
woman of New England birth to become a nun.
De Goesbriand, Catholic Memoirs of Vermont and New Hampshire
(Burlington, 1886); Michaud in History of the Cath. Ch. in the
New England States (Boston, 1899), II; Shea, Hist. of the Cath.
Ch. in U.S. (New York, 1904); Reuss, Biog. Cycl. of the Cath.
Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898); Catholic Directory, 1907.
THOMAS F. MEEHAN
Burma
Burma
Before its annexation by the British Burma consisted of the
kingdoms of Ava and Pegu. In 1548 St. Francis Xavier petitioned
Father Rodriguez for missionaries to go to Pegu, but nothing is
known as to the outcome of his request. In 1699 the Vicar
Apostolic of Siam and the Bishop of Meliapur had a dispute
concerning the jurisdiction over Pegu, and Cardinal de Tournon,
Legatus a latere, decided against the vicar Apostolic. The
actual work of evangelizing Ava and Pegu did not begin until the
pontificate of Innocent XIII who in 1722, sent Father Sigismond
de Calchi a Barnabite, and Father Vittoni, of the same order, to
Burma. After many trials and tribulations they succeeded in
obtaining permission to preach with full liberty the Gospel of
Christ. In 1741 Benedict XIV definitely established the mission,
appointing Father Galizia vicar Apostolic, and placing the
Barnabites in charge of the work; but in the wars which
distracted those regions during the eighteenth century the last
two members of the order who had remained in the country were
killed. The Barnabites having given up the mission, Pius VIII
sent Monsignor Frederic Cao, a member of the Congregation of
Pious Schools, and titular Bishop of Zama (18 June, 1830),
Gregory XVI placed the mission under the Oblates of Pinerolo,
Italy, by appointing (5 July, 1842) Monsignor Giovanni Ceretti,
a member of this institute, and titular Bishop of Adrianople, as
first vicar Apostolic. About this date (1845) the Catholics of
the two kingdoms numbered 2500. In 1848 Monsignor John Balma
succeeded as vicar Apostolic (5 September, 1848), but the war
with the British rendered his labours ineffectual, and the
mission was abandoned about 1852.
The British had in reality begun to assume control of Burma in
1824, but it was not until 20 December, 1852, that the East
India Company, after a bloody war, annexed the entire kingdom of
Pegu, a territory as large as England. Many years later the
kingdom of Ava was also taken by the British, and with conquest
of Rangoon the whole of Burma came into the possession of Great
Britain. The Oblates of Pinerolo having withdrawn from the
mission, the vicariate was placed, in 1855, under the control of
the Vicar Apostolic of Siam. At this date the kingdom of Ava and
Pegu contained 11 priests and 5320 Catholics.
Burma is bounded on the east by China and Siam, on the West by
Assam and Bengal. Its area is approximately 171,430 square
rniles, while that of Great Britain and Ireland is 120,947
square miles. Notwithstanding this large extent of territory,
Burma has a population of only 8, 000,000 inhabitants. For some
ten years the mission remained under the administration of the
vicar Apostolic of Siam; but such a condition could not be
indefinitely prolonged without compromising its future. A decree
of Propaganda (27 November, 1806) accordingly divided Burma into
three vicariates, named respectively, with references to their
geographical positions, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Burma.
The boundaries then fixed were abrogated (28 June, 1870) by
another decree of Propaganda, which constituted these three
vicariates as they now are.
Northern Burma
This vicariate, which has been entrusted to the Missions
Etrangères of Paris, is bounded on the north by the Chinese
province of Yun-nan, on the east by the River Salwen, on the
south by Karenni and Lower Burma, and on the west by Manipur,
the Garo Hills, and the independent territories of Tipperah and
Assam. In a population of 3,500,000 there are 7248 Catholics,
whose spiritual needs are served by 22 European clergy of the
Missions Etrangères of Paris and 3 native priests with 47
churches or chapels. The vicariate also possesses 18 schools
with 754 children, a seminary with 22 students, 2
boarding-schools with 160 pupils and 6 orphanages with 315
orphans. This is the most dense of the vicar Apostolic is at
Mandalay. The stations having one chapel and a resident
missionary are Pyinmana, Yamèthin, Magyidaw, Chanthagon,
Myokine, Chaung-u, Nabet, Shwebo, Chanthaywa, Monhla, Bhano, and
Maymyo. At Mandalay there are, besides the cathedral, the Tamil
church of St. Xavier, a Chinese church, and that of St. John's
Asylum. The language commonly used in this vicariate is Burmese,
but residents ordinarily employ their respective native tongues,
which amounts for the Chinese church at Mandalay. This city of
188,000 inhabitants is a busting centre of traffic between Lower
Burma and the Province of Yun-nan; hence the large Chinese
element in the population.
Eastern Burma
The vicariate is entrusted to the Milan Seminary of Foreign
Missions. Its boundaries, determined by decree of 26 August,
1889, are: on the north the Chinese Province of Yun-nan; on the
east, the Mekong, the subsequent course of which bounds Cambodia
and Annam; on the south, Karenni and Shan; on the west, the
River Salween and part of the course of the Sittang. The
vicariate is made up of two quite distinct portions connected
almost at right angles by a somewhat narrow strip of territory.
The first of these portions comprises Toungoo and the regions
Iying between the Sittang and the Salween as far as 20 north
latitude; from this parallel of latitude the second portion
stretches north to the Tropic of Cancer, bordered on the east
and south by China, Annam, and Siam, and on the west by the
River Salween.
The beginnings of the mission go back to 1868 when the Milan
Seminary of Foreign Missions sent thither Monsignor Biffi as
prefect Apostolic, accompanied by Sebastian Carbode, Conti, and
Rocco Tornatori. The last named of these is the present vicar
Apostolic, and has resided forty years in the vicariate. There
are 10, 300 Catholics in this vicariate, the population of which
is not exactly known, but amounts to something like 2,000 000.
The vicar Apostolic resides in the Leitko HiIls and visits 130
villages in the Karenni district, where there are 10,000
Catholics -- almost the whole Catholic population of the
vicariate. There is a school, with 65 children, a convent of the
Sisters of Nazareth of Milan, with 40 girls, and, in some of the
villages, the beginnings of schools with a few pupils. Toungoo,
in the south of the vicariate, with 300 Catholics, has an
English school of 130 children of various races, a Native school
of 100 children, and a convent of the Sisters of the Reparation
of Nazareth of Milan with 70 girls. There are 10 priests. In
I902 there were 140 conversions from Paganisms and 6 from
Protestantism. The stations provided with are, besides the
residence of the vicar Apostolic, Toungoo, Northern Karenni,
Yedashe, and Karenni.
Southern Burma
This vicariate, entrusted to the Missions Etrangères of Paris,
comprises all the territory included in British (Lower) Burma
before the annexation of Upper Burma, with the exception,
however, of the province of Arakan (attached in 1879 to the
Diocese of Dacca) and the Toungoo district (assigned to the
Vicariate of Eastern Burma). It is, therefore, bounded on the
east by the Diocese of Dacca, on the north by Eastern Burma, on
the west by Siam, and on the south by the sea. It extends from
the nineteenth to the tenth parallel of north latitude, and,
beginning from Moulmein, forms a long and rather narrow strip of
land shut in between Siam on the one side and the sea on the
other.
In a population estimated at 4,000,000 as many as 45,.579
Catholics are found distributed among 23 stations, the most
important of which in respect of Catholic population are:
Rangoon, with 2336 Catholics; Moulmein, 1400; Bassein, 1040;
Myaung-mya, 4000; Kanaztogon, 4482; Mittagon, 3000; Maryland,
2412; Gyobingauk Tharrawady, 2200. The seat of vicariate
Apostolic is at Rangoon. The clergy number 49 European priests,
and the vicariate has 231 churches and chapels. The schools are
conducted by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, the Sisters
of the Good Shepherd, of St. Joseph of the Apparition, and of
St. Francis Xavior, those known under this last name being
natives. The vicariate supports 12 Anglo-native schools with
4501 children, and 65 Burman or Tamil schools which give
instruction to 2200 pupils. The Little Sisters of the Poor, 9 in
number, take care of 55 old people at Rangoon, and the
Missionaries of Mary have an asylum sheltering 100 children,
besides which there are 21 orphanages, containing 790 children,
under the care of the above mentioned religious communities.
This vicariate, therefore, is in further advanced in
Christianity than the other two, a condition due to its greater
accessibility and the British influence, which is more fully
developed in these regions. In 1845, as has been seen, there
were only 2500 Catholics in Burma, sixty years later there are
59,127 -- a proof of the activity of the missionaries and a
pledge for the future.
Monsignor Alexander Cardot, Bishop of Limyra, Vicar Apostolic of
Southern Burma, was born at Fresse, Haute-Saône, France, 9
January, 1859, and educated in the seminaries of Luneil and
Vesoul and of the Missions Etrangères. Monsignor Cardot began
his labours in the mission field in 1879, and in 1893 was
appointed coadjutor to Bishop Bigandet, his predecessor in the
vicariate, who consecrated him at Rangoon (24 June, 1893). He
succeeded to the vicariate on the death of Bishop Bigandet, 19
March, 1894.
ALBERT BATTANDIER
Peter Hardeman Burnett
Peter Hardeman Burnett
First American Governor of California, U.S.A., b. in Nashville,
Tennessee, 15 Nov., 1807, of Virginian ancestry; d. at San
Francisco, California, 16 May, 1895. At an early age he was
taken by his father to Missouri, where amid primitive conditions
of life he succeeded in obtaining an elementary education. At
the age of nineteen he returned to Tennessee, and soon after
married Harriet W. Rogers, to whom he attributed much of the
success of his later career. After his marriage he started in
business for himself, studied law and was admitted to the bar in
1839. He also edited "The Far West", a weekly paper published at
Liberty, Missouri. About this time he became a member of the
Church of the Disciples, or Campbellites, founded by Alexander
Campbell, a seceder from the Baptists. In 1843, removing with
his family to Oregon, he took a prominent part in the formation
of the territorial government and was a member of the
legislature from 1844 to 1848. During this period the published
debate between Campbell and Bishop Purcell of Cincinatti fell
into his hands, and though after reading it he still remained a
Protestant, his confidence in Protestantism was considerably
shaken. He then began a systematic investigation of the true
religion, became convinced of the truth of the Catholic claims,
and in June, 1846, was received into the church at Oregon city
by Father De vos.
In the year 1848 Burnett went to California, where he was
elected a member of the Legislative Assembly and took a leading
part in its Proceedings. He was appointed judge of the superior
tribunal in August, 1849 and did good work in the framing of the
State Constitution. In September he was chosen chief justice,
and on the thirteenth of November of the same year he was
elected the first American Governor of California, though
California was not admitted as a State into the Union till
September, 1850. He resigned the governorship in 1851 and
resumed the practice of law until his appointment in 1857 as a
Justice of the Supreme Court of California by Gov. J. Neeley
Johnson. His term expired in October 1858. He was also President
of the Pacific Bank from 1863 to 1880, after which he retired
from active business. In 1860 Judge Burnett wrote his famous
book "The Path which led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic
Church" (New York, 1860), wherein he bases his conversion on
clear-cut logical principles. With regard to this work Dr.
Brownson says "In writing his book, Judge Burnett has rendered a
noble homage to his new faith. . . . Through him California has
made a more glorious contribution to the Union than all the gold
of her mines, for truth is more precious than gold, yea, than
fine gold" (Brownson's Review, April, 1860). This was followed
by his work on "The American Theory of Government, Considered
with Referenee to the Present Crisis" (2d ed., New York, 1861).
During the period of his retirement he published "Recollections
and Opinions of an Old Pioneer" (New York, 1860), which "is
especially valuable in connection with the early political and
constitutional history of the Pacific coast" (Nation, XXX, 389),
and "Reasons Why We Should Believe in God, Love God and Obey
God" (New York, 1884).
The Ave Maria (Notre Dame, 1-29., 1898); Catholic News, files
(New York, 5 June, 1895); The Pilot, files (Boston, 1 June,
1895); Brownson's Review, April, 1863).
EDWARD P. SPILLANE
James Burns
James Burns
Publisher and author, b. near Montrose, Forfarshire, Scotland,
1808; d. in London, 11 April, 1871. During the last half of the
nineteenth century his work in the cause of Catholic literature
and Catholic church music contributed much to the rapid
advancement of the Church in Great Britain and to the many
conversions that were made throughout that period. His father
was a Presbyterian minister and sent him to a college in Glasgow
with the idea that he should follow the same calling. But
feeling no inclination for it, he left the school in 1832 and
went to London where he found employment with a publishing firm.
He acquired a thorough knowledge of this trade and then set up
for himself in a modest way. He soon won success and the
ministers of the Established Church adopted him as an active
auxiliary in their literary campaign of tracts and polemic
publications. He then became a "Puseyite", or high-churchman.
From his press were issued many interesting and instructive
books of a high literary tone in the series he called "The
Englishman's Library" and "The Fireside Library". The Oxford
Movement under Newman of course drew him within its range, with
the result that, in spite of the great worldly sacrifice it
meant, he followed the example of many of his friends and became
a convert in 1847.
The change was one of the sensations of the time and involved
for him the making of a new business life and fortune. The
Anglican publications of the old house were sold off and he set
to work, and succeeded, in a comparatively brief time, in
building up an equally enviable reputation as an enterprising
and prolific publisher of good and wholesome Catholic
literature. To his "Popular Library" Cardinal Wiseman
contributed "Fabiola" and Cardinal Newman, "Callista". Other
volumes from a host of well-known writers, prayer books, and
books of devotion soon made the name of the firm of burns &
Oates a household word throughout the English-speaking world.
Mr. Burns also wrote constantly on church music and edited and
republished many compositions of the best masters. He continued
his busy life in spite of a painful internal malady which ended
in cancer, from which he died. His widow, who was also a
convert, survived him twenty-two years, dying a member of the
Ursuline community at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., January,
1893. Of his five daughters, four entered the Ursuline Order and
the other became a Sister of Charity. His only son was ordained
a priest, serving for a long time as chaplain at Nazareth House,
Hammersmith, London.
THOMAS F. MEEHAN
Burse
Burse
(Bursa, "hide", "skin"; whence "bag" or "purse").
A receptacle in which, for reasons of convenience xnd reverence,
the folded corporal is carried to and from the altar. In Roman
form the burse is ordinarily made of two juxtaposed pieces of
cardboard about twenty-five centimetres (or ten inches) square,
bound together at three edges, leaving the fourth open to
receive the corporal. One outer side of the burse is of the same
material and colour as the vestments with which it is used; the
rest is lined with linen or silk. The use of the burse is
relatively recent. When the corporal reached its present small
dimensions, it was carried to the altar, sometimes in the
missal, sometimes in a special receptacle, a box or bag, which
finally took the present form of burse. Just when this custom
began cannot be determined. "Chronicon vetus rerum Moguntinarum"
(1140-1251) mentions a precious corporal-case; this may have
been, however, only a box for the continual safe-keeping of the
corporal. St. Charles Borromeo describes a sacculus corporalis
distinct from the case in which corporals were preserved (Acta
Mediolan., 1683, I, 524). From the fourteenth to the seventeenth
centuries the use of the burse spread, and in 1692 it was
universally illicit to celebrate Mass without one (Decreta
S.R.C., 1866, ad 2m).
GIHR, The Sacrifice of the Mass (St. Louis, 1902), 264, 265
GAVANTUS-MERATI, Thesaurus sac. rituum (Venice, 1762), I, 90.
JOHN B. PETERSON
The Abbey of Bursfeld
The Abbey of Bursfeld
In the Middle Ages on of the most celebrated Benedictine
monasteries in Germany was the Abbey of Bursfeld, Situated
directly west of Göttingen, on the River Weser, in what is now
the Prussian Provence of Hanover. It was founded in 1093 by Duke
Henry of Nordheim and his wife Gertrude, who richly endowed it.
Henry IV of Germany granted it numerous privileges and
immunities. Its first abbot, Almericus, came from the
neighbouring Abbey of Corvey, bringing thence a band of monks.
Following the Benedictine tradition, Almericus opened a school
in connection with the abbey, which soon became famous, and
under the next four abbots its fame continued to increase. But
in 1331, under the worthless Abbot Henry Lasar, monastic
discipline began to relax; the school was neglected, and the
rich possessions were dissipated. From 1331 to 1424 no records
of the abbey were kept. When, in 1424, the aged Albert of
Bodenstein became Abbot of Bursfeld, church and school had
fallen almost into ruins, the monastery itself was in a
dilapidated condition, and but one old monk remained there.
Albert would gladly have restored Bursfeld to its former
splendour, but was too old to undertake the gigantic task. He
resigned the abbacy in 1430.
During the fifteenth century a strong desire for monastic and
other ecclesiastical reforms made itself felt throughout the
Catholic world. One of the first Benedictine reformers was the
pious and zealous John Dederoth, of Münden of Nordheim. Having
effected notable reforms at Clus, where he had been abbot since
1430, Dederoth was induced by Duke Otto of Brunswick, in 1433,
to undertake the reform of Bursfeld. Obtaining four exemplary
religious from the monastery of St. Matthias, he assigned two of
them to the monastery at Clus, to maintain his reformed
discipline there, while the other two went with him to Bursfeld.
Being still Abbot of Clus, he was able to recruit from that
community for Bursfeld. Dederoth succeeded beyond expectations
in the restoration of Bursfeld and began the reform of
Reinhausen, near Göttingen, but died 6 February, 1439, before
his efforts in that quarter had borne fruit.
THE BURSFELD UNION
Although the monasteries reformed by him never united into a
congregation, still Dederoth's reforms may be looked upon as the
foundation of the renowned Bursfeld Union, or Congregation.
Dederoth, indeed, intended to unite the reformed Benedictine
monasteries of Northern Germany by a stricter uniformity of
discipline, but the execution of his plan was left to his
successor, the celebrated John of Hagen (not to be confounded
with the Carthusian John of Hagen, otherwise called Johannes de
Indagine). In 1445 John of Hagen obtained permission from the
Council of Basle to restore the Divine Office to the original
form of the old Benedictine Breviary and to introduce liturgical
and disciplinary uniformity in the monasteries that followed the
reform of Bursfeld. A year later (11 March, 1446) Louis
d'Allemand, as Cardinal Legate authorized by the Council of
Basle, approved the Bursfeld Union, which then consisted of the
six abbeys: Bursfeld, Clus, Reinhausen, Cismar in
Schleswig-Holstein, St. Jacob near Mainz, and Huysburg near
Magdeburg. The cardinal likewise decreed that the Abbot of
Bursfeld should always ex officio be one of the three presidents
of the congregation, and that he should have power to convoke
annual chapters. The first annual chapter of the Bursfeld
congregation convened in the monastery of Sts. Peter and Paul at
Erfurt in 1446. In 1451, while on his journey of reform through
Germany, the Cardinal Legate, Nicholas of Cusa, met John of
Hagen at Würzburg, where the Benedictine monasteries of the
Mainz-Bamberg province held their triennial provincial chapter.
The legate appointed the Abbot of Bursfeld visitor for this
province, and in a bull, dated 7 June, 1451, the Bursfeld
Congregation was approved, and favoured with new privileges.
Finally, on 6 March, 1458, Pope Pius II approved the statutes of
the congregation and gave it all the privileges which Eugene IV
had given to the Italian Benedictine Congregation of St. Justina
since the year 1431. In 1461 this approbation was reiterated,
and various new privileges granted to the congregation. Favoured
by bishops, cardinals, and popes, as well as by temporal rulers,
especially the Dukes of Brunswick, the Bursfeld Congregation
exercised a wholesome influence to promote true reform in the
Benedictine monasteries of Germany during the second half of the
fifteenth, and the first half of the sixteenth, century. At the
death of Abbot John of Hagen thirty-six monasteries had already
joined the Bursfeld Congregation, and new ones were being added
every year. During its most flourishing period, shortly before
the Protestant revolt, at least 136 abbeys, scattered through
all parts of Germany, belonged to the Bursfeld Union.
The religious revolution, and especially the consequent risings
of the peasants in Germany, greatly retarded the progress of the
Bursfeld Reform. In 1579, Andrew Lüderitz, the last Abbot of
Bursfeld, was driven from the monastery by the Lutheran Duke
Julius of Brunswick, and, after an existence of almost five
hundred years, Bursfeld ceased to be a Catholic monastery. The
possessions of the abbey were confiscated, and the abbot was
replaced by an adherent of Luther. About forty other Benedictine
abbeys belonging to the Bursfeld Congregation were wrested from
the Church, their possessions confiscated by Lutheran princes,
and their churches demolished or turned to Protestant uses.
Though greatly impeded in its work of reform, the Bursfeld
Congregation continued to exist until the compulsory
secularization of all its monasteries at the end of the
eighteenth, and the beginning of the nineteenth, century. Its
last president was Bernard Bierbaum, Abbot of Werden inthe Rhine
Province, who died in 1798. Bursfeld (Bursfelde) is at present a
small village with about 200 inhabitants, for whom a Lutheran
minister holds services in the old abbey church.
Trithemius, Chronicon Hirsaugiense (St. Gall, 1690), II, 350;
Leuckfeld, Antiquitates Bursfeldenses (Leipzig and Wolfenbüttel,
1703); Evelt, Die Anfänge der Bursfelder
Benedictiner-Congregation (Münster, 1865); Biedenfeld, Mönchs-
und Klosterfrauen-Orden (Weimer, 1837), I, 281; Brockhoff, Die
Klöster der hl. kath. Kirche (Oberhausen); Heimbucher, Die Orden
und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1896), I, 141; Linneborn, Die
Reformation der westfälischen Benedictinerklöster im 15. Jahrh.
durch die Bursfelder Congregation in Studien u. Mittheilungen
aus dem Benedictiner-Orden, XX-XXII; Berlière, Les origines de
la congrégation de Bursfeld in Revue Bénédictine, XVI.
MICHAEL OTT
The Abbey of Bury St. Edmund's
The Abbey of Bury St. Edmund's
The first religious foundation there was established by
Sigebert, King of the East Angles, who resigned his crown to
found a monastery about 537. It became celebrated when the
relics of the martyred King Edmund were brought there in 903,
after which time the town, till then called Boedericsworth,
became known as St. Edmund's Town or St. Edmund's Bury. During
the reign of Canute (1016-35) the secular canons were replaced
by Benedictines. In 1095 there was a solemn translation of the
saint's relics to the new church built by Abbot Baldwin. The
shrine grew in fame, wealth, and magnificence till the monastery
was considered second only to Glastonbury, but in 1465 a
terrible fire caused irreparable loss to the church, from which
it never recovered. The abbot had a seat in Parliament and
possessed full jurisdiction over the town and neighbourhood.
There was accomodation for eighty monks, but more than two
hundred persons resided in the Abbey. At the dissolution, the
revenues were valued at £2,366, equivalent to more than £20,000
in present money. It was in the abbey church that the memorable
meeting of barons took place in the year 1214, when Cardinal
Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, standing at the high altar,
read out the proposed Charter of Liberties, which in the form of
Magna Charta was signed by King John in 1215. The abbey was
finally dissolved by Henry VIII in 1539, when the abbey church
and the monastic buildings were in large measure destroyed, the
gateway, an ancient bridge, and other scattered ruins alone now
remaining. The fate of the saint's relics has never been
decided. According to one tradition, they were abstracted by
Prince Louis of France in 1217. Relics purporting to be those of
the saint were long preserved at Toulouse, until in 1901,
Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster, obtained leave to
translate them to England. Doubts having been thrown on the
authenticity of the relics, a commission of investigation was
appointed by the Holy See, but no report has been published.
Among the famous monks of the Abbey were Abbot Sampson and his
chronicler Jocelin of Brakelond (d. 1211); John Boston de Bury,
author and bibliographer (d. 1430); John Lydgate, poet (d.
1446), and Byfield who was burnt for heresy in 1530.
THOMPSON, "Records of St. Edmund's"; DUGDALE, "Monasticism"
(London, 1821), III, 98-176; JOCELINI DE BRAKELONDA, "De rebus
gestis Samsonis Abbatis" (Camden Society, 1840); TYMMS,
"Handbook of Bury St. Edmunds" (8th ed., 1905). See also
CARLYLE, "Past and Present" (1843).
EDWIN BURTON
Venerable Caesar de Bus
Venerable César de Bus
A priest and founder of two religious congregations, b. 3
February, 1544, at Cavaillon, Comtat Venaissin (now France); d.
15 April, 1607, at Avignon. At eighteen he joined the king's
army and took part in the war against the Huguenots. After the
war he devoted some time to poetry and painting, but soon made
up his mind to join the fleet which was then besieging La
Rochelle. Owing to a serious sickness this design could not be
carried out. Up to this time de Bus had led a pious and virtuous
life, which, however during a sojourn of three years in Paris
was changed for one of pleasure and dissipation. From Paris he
went back to Cavaillon. Upon the death of his brother, a canon
of Salon, he succeeded in obtaining the vacated benefice, which
he sought for the gratification of his worldly ambitions.
Shortly after this, however, he returned to a better life,
resumed his studies, and in 1582 was ordained to the priesthood.
He distinguished himself by his works of charity and his zeal in
preaching and catechizing, and conceived the idea of instituting
a congregation of priests who should devote themselves to the
preaching of Christian Doctrine. In 1592, the "Prêtres séculiers
de la doctrine chrétienne", or "Doctrinaires", were founded in
the town of L'Isle and in the following year came to Avignon.
This congregation was approved by Pope Clement VIII, 23
December, 1597. Besides the Doctrinaires, de Bus founded an
order of women called "Filles de la doctrine chrétienne" and
later the Ursulines. Pope Pius VII declared him Venerable in
1821. Five volumes of his "Instructions familières" were
published (Paris, 1666).
De Beauvais, Vie du P. César de Bus (Paris, 1645); Dumas, Vie du
P. de Bus (Paris, 1703); Helyor, Histoire des ordres religieux,
revised ed. by Badiche in Migne, Encyclopédie théologique
(Paris, 1848), XXI; Brischar in Kirchenlex., III, 1873, s.v.
Doctrinarier; Baillet, Les vies des saints (Paris, 1739), III,
617; Heimbucher, Die orden und Kongregationen der kathol. Kirche
(Paderborn, 1897), II, 338.
C.A. DUBRAY
Pierre Buse
Pierre Busée
(Busæus or Buys).
A Jesuit theologian, born at Nimwegen in 1540; died at Vienna in
1587. When twenty-two years old he entered the novitiate of the
Society of Jesus at Cologne where, six years later (1567) he
became master of novices. In addition to this office he was
appointed to give religious instruction to the higher classes in
the Jesuit college at Cologne. He then undertook to complete the
large catechism of Canisius by adding to it the full text of the
Scriptural and patristic references cited by the author. St.
Peter Canisius himself encouraged this undertaking. The first
volume appeared at Cologne in 1569, under the title Authoritates
sacræ Scripturæ et sanctorum Patrum, quæ in summa doctrinæ
christianæ doctoris Petri Canisii citantur. The following year,
1570, the work was completed, and was received at once with much
favor. It consists of four volumes; for some unknown reason the
last volume is lacking in the fine edition of the catechism,
with notes by Busée, which was issued in 1571 by the celebrated
house of Manutius of Venice, the descendants of Aldus Manutius.
In 1577, a new edition, revised and augmented by another Jesuit,
Jean Hase, was published at Cologne in one folio volume, under
another title: Opus catechisticum. . .D. Petri Canisii theologi
S. J. præclaris divinæ Scripturæ testimoniis, sanctorumque
Patrum sententiis sedulo illustratum operâ D. Petri Busæi
Noviomagni, ejusd. Soc. theologi, nunc vero primum accessione
novâ locupletatem atque restitutum. Six years before this Father
Busée had left Cologne and gone to Vienna, where he lectured on
the Holy scriptures in the university and taught Hebrew at the
college of the Jesuits. In 1584 Busée went to Rome at the
command of the General of the Society, Father Acquaviva, who had
appointed him a member of a commission to draw up a system or
plan of studies (Ratio Studiorum) for the entire Society. On his
return to Vienna, Busée was made Rector of the College of Nobles
and died while holding this position.
De Backer and Sommervogel, Bibliothéque. de la c. de J., II,
col. 439-442; Braunsberger, Entstehung und erste Entwicklung der
Katechismen des S. Petrus Canisius (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893);
Brucker in Dict. de theol. cath., II, col. 1265, 1266.
A. FOURNET
Hermann Busembaum
Hermann Busembaum
Moral theologian, born at Notteln, Westphalia, 1600; died at
Münster, 31 January, 1668. He entered the Society of Jesus in
his nineteenth year. After completing his studies, he taught the
classics, philosophy, and moral and dogmatic theology, in
various houses of the order. He was rector of the colleges of
Hildesheim and Münster, socius to the provincial, and again
rector at Münster when he died. His prudence, keenness of
intellect, firmness of will, large-heartedness and tack combined
to form a rare character. These natural gifts were heightened by
a singular innocence of life and constant communion with God.
Hence we are not surprised to learn that he was eminently
successful as a director of souls. He was chosen by Christoph
Bernard von Galen, the Prince-Bishop of Münster, as his
confessor, and became his most trusted advisor; and much of the
growth and enduring spiritual activity of that diocese is due to
these two men. Towards the end of his life Busembaum was
attacked by a lingering and extremely painful sickness. He died
peacefully and with sentiments of great piety. He was a holy
man; but it was as a great theologian that he is especially
remembered. In 1645 as Southwell says, or according to De Backer
in 1650, appeared his principal work: Medulla theologiæ moralis
facili ac perspicua methodo resolvens causa conscientiæ ex
variis probatisque auctoribus concinnata. This work is a
classic; its conciseness, clearness, method, depth, vastness of
theological lore comprised into so small a volume, sanity of
judgment, and practical utility proclaimed its author to be a
man gifted in a superlative degree with the moral instinct and
the powers of a great teacher. Busembaum's name became in a
short while one of the important ones in moral theology. In his
preface to the first edition, he acknowledges his indebtedness
to two Jesuits, Hermann Nünning and Friedrich Spe, whose
manuscripts he had before him while composing his own work, and
he claims for them a share in whatever good his "Medulla" was to
effect. The author lived to see the fortieth edition of his
little book. Up to the year 1845 over two hundred editions had
appeared, which gives us an average of more than one edition for
every year of its existence. The book was printed in all the
great centres of the Catholic world, Münster, Cologne,
Frankfort, Ingolstadt, Lisbon, Lyon, Venice, Padua, and Rome; it
was used as a textbook in numberless seminaries for over two
centuries. This success was certainly phenomenal. Nor was
Busembaum less fortunate in his commentators. Three of the
greatest moralists of their respective periods, La Croix, St.
Alphonsus Ligouri, and, in our own days, Ballerini, took the
"Medulla" as their text and commented on it in their masterly
volumes. St. Alphonsus wished to put into the hands of the
students of his congregation the book that would help them most
to master in a limited time and with order the difficult science
of moral theology. During several years, he had read very many
authors, but his choice finally fell on Busembaum.
The foregoing statements give full assurance of Busembaum's
orthodoxy and authority. For it is incredible that the Church
would have tolerated in the schools in which her future priests
were being trained for the sacred ministry a book that taught a
morality which was not her own. The attacks made on Busembaum
have been singularly futile. He was accused of teaching doctrine
that was subversive of authority and of the security of kings.
This charge was founded on the following proposition:
Ad defensionem vitæ et integretatis membrorum licet filio et
religioso et subdito se tueri, si opus sit, cum occisione, contra
ipsum parentem, abbatem, principem, nisi forte propter mortem hujus
secutura essent nimis magna incommoda, ut bella. (Lib. III, Pt. I,
tr. iv, dub. 3, "De homocidio")
Busembaum lays down this principle: according to natural law it
is permitted to repel by force an unjust aggressor, and if it be
necessary for the saving of one's life, to kill him. In such
cases, however, the person attacked should have the intention of
defending himself and should not inflict greater harm or use
more force than is necessary for self-defense. Then according to
his method, Busembaum applies the principle to various cases;
and among them is the one to which the adversaries object. So
that the proposition that caused the trouble is merely an
application of a principle of the natural law to an individual
case. This proposition is taken almost verbatim from St.
Antoninus. It is essentially the same as the doctrine of St.
Thomas, who says:
And therefore as it is permitted to resist robbers so also it is
permitted to resist evil rulers in similar circumstances, unless
perchance to avoid scandal, should it be feared that any serious
disturbance might result. (II-II:69:4)
St. Alphonsus refers to this proposition of Busembaum in a
letter to his editor, Redmondini, 10 March, 1758, and remarks
"the proposition is not at all condemnable." The truth of the
matter is that our author is here following in the footsteps of
very eminent theologians, and the doctrine is not singular.
Another objection is that Busembaum defends the principle, the
end sanctions the means; the sense of the objection being that
when the end is lawful, means in themselves unlawful are
justified; that is, if the end is good, one may do something
that is against the natural law to attain that end. Now the
truth is that Busembaum teaches the opposite: Præceptum naturale
negativum, prohibens rem intrinsece malum no licet violare ne
quid ob metum mortis. (A negative precept of natural law which
prohibits a thing intrinsically evil can never be lawfully
transgressed not even under the influence of the fear of death,
Lib. I, tr. ii, c. iv, dub. 2, n. 1) So that it is not lawful to
do a thinG which is wrong in itself, even to escape death. The
incriminated passage occurs under the question which Busembaum
puts: Quid liceat reo circa fugam poenæ (Lib. IV, c. iii, d. 7,
a. 2). He answers:
It is lawful for the accused even when really guilty to escape
before and after the sentence of death or of some punishment equal
to death, v.g. life imprisonment, has been passed. The reason is
because man's right to the preservation of his life is so great that
no human power can oblige him not to preserve it, if there be
well-grounded hope of his doing so; unless indeed the public weal
demand otherwise. Hence the accused may escape. . .unless indeed
charity urge him not to do so, when the harm to the guards is
greater than that which would come to himself. 1) Much more so may
he flee so as not to be captured. . .but he must use no violence by
wounding or striking the ministers of justice. 2) He may also, at
least before the tribunal of conscience, deceive the
guards--excluding violence and injury--by giving them for instance
food or drink to induce sleep, or by bringing it about that they
will be absent; he may snap his chains, or break open the prison;
because when the end is lawful, the means are also lawful.
Here therefore we have the explicit exclusion of unlawful means,
and the sense of the phrase is only this: when the end is
lawful, then is the use of means in themselves indifferent, i.
e., not unlawful, permitted. We must here remark that there is
in the "Medulla" a very small number of solutions taken from and
defended by other authors, which were afterward rejected by
Alexander VII and Innocent XI. But these solutions are not
peculiar to Busembaum. nor should we be surprised that an author
who solves almost numberless practical cases should err at times
in his application of laws and principles to particular,
intricate instances. The real wonder is that the mistaken
applications of Busembaum's great work are so very few.
Hurter, Nomenclatur, II, 259; Thoelen, Menologium, (Roermond,
1901), 73; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Paris, 1891), II,
445; Fritz in Kirchenlex. s. v. Busembaum; Duhr, Jesuitenfabeln
(Freiburg im Br., 1899), 432, 524; Reichmann, Der Zweck heiligt
die Mittel (Freiburg im Br., 1903), 13, 22, 121; Letters of St.
Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (New York, 1896), Pt. II, Special
Correspondence, I, let. xxxvi.
TIMOTHY B. BARRETT
Busiris
Busiris
A titular see taking its title from one of the many Egyptian
cities of the same name. This particular Busiris was situated in
the middle of the Delta, on the Pathmitish, or Damietta Branch
of the Nile. The ancient Egyptian name, Pa-osiri means "House of
Osiris", the god being supposed to be buried there; hence the
Coptic Pousiri, Greek Pousiris and Bouseiris, Arabic Abusir. It
now exists as a village under the last of these names and is to
be distinguished from another similarly named town on the coast
of Lydia. Busiris was the chief town of the Busirite nomos
(Hierocles, Synecdemos 725,7) and became a see of Ægyptus
Secunda. Its bishop, Hermæon, is mentioned at Nicæa (325) by
Meletius, as one of his partisans. About this time there was
united to the title of Busiris that of Kynos, from the important
city of Lower Kynos (Athanas., "Apol. c. Arianos", lxxviii, in
P.G.., XXV, 376). Its bishop, Athanasius, defended Dioscorus at
the Latroecinium of Ephesus in 449, but apologized publicy at
Chalcedon (Liberatus, Breviarium, xiv). From the seventh century
on, the see is mentioned in the lists of the Greek patriarchate
(Georgius Cyprius, 736), though its titulars belong really to
the Jacobite patriarchate. Thus, in 742, its bishop, James,
takes a part in the election of the Patriarch Michael I
(Renaudot, "Hist. Patriarch. Alexandrin.", 207); a little later,
under the same patriarch, its bishop, Peter, is mentioned
(ibid., 227); we hear also of Severus, under Philotheus
(979-1003) and of Chail, or Michael, and Mohna in the thirteenth
century (ibid., 458, 569).
Lequien, Or. Christ., II, 569,570; Gams, Series episcop., 461.
For the ruins at Abusir, see Naville in the Seventh Mem. of the
Egyptian Exploration Fund (London, 1890), 27.
L. PETI
Buskins
Buskins
(Caligæ).
Ceremonial stockings of silk, sometimes interwoven with gold
threads, and even heavily embroidered, worn by the celebrant of
a pontifical Mass. Originally worn by priests, they were
reserved about the eighth century for the exclusive use of
bishops, a privilege recently extended to lesser prelates. In
colour they correspond to the chasuble, but are never worn with
black.
CATALANI, Cærem. Episcop. Comm. Illus. (Paris, 1860), I,
197-199; BERNARD, Le Pontifical (Paris, 1902), I, 17-18;
MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1896). 104-105.
JOHN B. PETER
Franz Joseph, Ritter von Buss
Franz Joseph, Ritter von Buss
Jurist, b. 23 March, 1803 at Zell in Baden; d. 31 January, 1878,
at Freiburg im Breisgau. He studied at the University of
Freiburg where he took the doctor's degree in philosophy, law,
and medicine. After a short stay at the Universities of Bonn and
Göttingen he returned to Freiburg, passed a brilliant
examination and was appointed attorney for that city. He became
ordinary professor at the university in 1836, where he soon
obtained a large following among the students, because in the
face of strong opposition he treated fearlessly vexed social and
ecclesiastical problems. To meet his many opponents Buss often
lectured four, even five, times a day. Throughout his life he
warmly advocated the interests of the people, whom he habitually
reached through the press and his public discourses. Besides a
modern language club of which he was the founder and president,
he gave much of his time to creating at Freiburg a centre for
the comparative study of European legislation and jurisprudence.
A large collection of valuable material was already in his
hands, and his extensive knowledge of law and of the principal
languages of Europe seemed to promise success. He soon found,
however, that the means of international correspondence were
inadequate to the enterprise. Some of the material collected
appeared in book form (1835-46), the sole fruit of his great
scheme.
In 1837 Buss was elected to the Lower House of Baden and
addressed himself at once to such subjects as the social
question, the liberty of the Church, a uniform customs system,
and closer commercial union between the States of Germany.
Unfortunately, Buss met from the beginning a hostile majority,
deaf to all his propositions and bent on his defeat. He was
reproached in open Parliament with the errors and false steps
into which the liberalism and restless activity of his youth had
betrayed him. Unable to make the least impression on the
assembly he resigned his seat. Elected again in 1846, Buss
opposed vigorously the "Deutschkatholicismus" of Ronge. This
brought out his opponents in full force. Extensive petitions in
his favor compelled the Government to dissolve the Parliament;
but the new election brought no improvement. Buss was still the
only champion of the Church in the Lower House, whilst in the
upper the whole weight of the opposition fell on Baron von
Andlau and his colleague Hirscher.
Buss now directed his impressible activities to more profitable
work. The "Methodology of Canon Law" (1842), the "Influence of
Christianity on Law and State" (1844), the "Difference between
Catholic and Protestant Universities in Germany" (1846), the
"German Union and the Love of Prussia", the "Re-establishment of
Canon Law", and the "Defence of the Jesuits" (1853) appeared in
rapid succession, each to do the work of the hour. But these
publications did not absorb all his energy. He introduced the
Sisters of Charity into the Grand Duchy of Baden; transformed
his own house into an ecclesiastical college; during the famine
of the winter of 1846 he fed thousands of starving people in the
Black Forest; and he organized the Catholics politically and
formed them into societies. In 1848 Buss had the honor of
presiding over the first general assembly of the German Catholic
associations in Mainz. He represented Ahaus-Steinfurt in the
German Parliament at Frankfort. There, as in the Erfurt Union
Parliament, where he was the leader of the Greater-Germany
Party, he favoured Austria as against Prussia. When the
opposition to the Church in Baden developed into open hostility,
Buss was at the side of the archbishop, Herman von Vicari. He
now very opportunely published (1855) he "Life of St. Thomas of
Canterbury", and dedicated it to the persecuted archbishop. He
was elected for the third time to the Baden Landtag when the
Concordat between Baden and the Holy See was in jeopardy. He at
once organized a popular deputation to the sovereign, comprising
representatives from all the parishes of Baden. But the old
opposition prevented the demonstration, invalidated his
election, and ejected him from the Landtag, and finally, at the
next election, his constituents forsook him. Buss, now, more
than ever, turned his face toward Austria. During the
Austro-Italian was he was so active and successful at the head
of an association for the relief of the German prisoners that in
acknowledgment of his services the emperor conferred on him the
Order of the Iron Crown. He also organized at Vienna a great
manifestation in favor of the temporal power of the pope, for
which he was decorated by Pius IX with the Order of Gregory the
Great.
Under the strain of excessive work and some bitter
disappointments, Buss broke down completely in 1866. A grave
attack of melancholy unbalanced his mind. After long treatment
he recovered, but events had meanwhile advanced so rapidly that
he no longer recognized the old Fatherland. His long cherished
hopes for the hegemony of Austria were blasted. He rejoiced at
the victories of the German armies in the Franco-Prussian war,
but remained averse to the new German Empire. Elected a fourth
time to the Lower House of Baden, Buss maintained his former
reputation. In 1874 he was sent to the Reichstag by a very large
vote and took his seat with the Centre Party. In 1877, after the
death of his youngest child, he withdrew from public life and
died soon after. In spite of failures Buss achieved a great
success in keeping Catholics alive to current events and their
bearing on the Church. He set Catholic Germany a stimulating
example by organizing and binding together no less than four
hundred Catholic associations, while to the Catholics of Baden
he gave what they most needed, a consciousness of their
strength, and the determination to fight for their civic and
religious rights.
Goyau, L'Allemagne religieuse (Paris, 1905), II, 269 sqq.;
Hägele in Kirchenlex., II, 1556-61.
CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ
Carlos Maria Bustamante
Carlos María Bustamante
Mexican statesman and historian, b. at Oaxaca, Mexico, 4
November, 1774; d. in Mexico, 29 September, 1848. Although
constantly concerned in the politics of Mexico, and occupying
several very responsible positions during the most trying times
of the Mexican Republic until the close of the war with the
United States, Bustamante found time and leisure to secure a
prominent position in the historical literature of his country.
In 1796 he took up the study of law, participated in the
attempts to secure independence from Spain, and, when that was
finally achieved, opposed the designs of Iturbide to transform
the newborn republic into a hereditary monarchy. Repeatedly
imprisoned and banished, he was nevertheless appointed to
important positions in the Government. The American war was a
source of deep grief to him, and he felt so keenly the
disastrous results of it for his country that he survived its
close only about one year. His historical sketch of that war is
a sad record of the decay and disintegration which afflicted
Mexico at the time. He writes with the greatest frankness, and
unsparingly, about the conduct of the was on the Mexican side.
His autobiography, published in 1833, is also valuable as a
fragment of contemporary history.
Bustamante distinguished himself by publishing historical works
on colonial times, till then in manuscript, and partly
forgotten. Above all, his publication of "Historia general de
las cosas de Nueva España", by Fray Bernardino de Sahagún of the
second half of the Sixteenth century, was a service to
historical research. It is open to grave criticism, being
defective and sometimes slovenly, but it should not be forgotten
that it is the first, of its kind and was published during the
most troubled period of the editors life. It must be condemned
as unreliable in many respects, and yet it has opened the road
to more exhaustive, and hence more valuable investigations. In
addition to the work of Sahagún, Bustamante printed the
chronicle of Gomara, the work of Veytia on Tezcuco, the
dissertations of Gama on two large Mexican sculptures, and
others. To the history by Sahagún he added one of the relaciones
if Ixtilxochitl, selected by him for the passionate spirit which
it displays against the Spaniards. Bustamante's anti-Spanish
feelings influence even his scientific publications and detract
from their value.
Any modern history of Mexico touches on the life and writings of
Bustamante. In addition to the autobiography mentioned (Lo que
se dice, y lo que se hace, 1833), and the light shed by his
other works, the "Diccionario universal de Historia y
Geografia"{Mexico, 1853), contains an exhaustive account of the
man. Alamán has written about him in terms of great eulogy,
putting in relief especially his private character and the
virtues of his domestic life.
Alamán, Historia de México (Mexico, 1848); Idem, Disertaciones
sobre la Historia de la República Mexicana (Mexico, 1848);
Diccionario hispano-americano.
AD. F. BANDELIER
Thomas Stephen Buston
Thomas Stephen Buston
(or Busten)
A Jesuit missionary and author, born 1549, in the Diocese of
Salisbury, England; died at Goa, 1619. He entered the novitiate
of the Society of Jesus on 11 October, 1576, and in the
following year sailed for India, landing at Goa on 24 October,
1578. He settled in the island of Salsette, on the west coast of
the peninsula, and in 1584 he became superior of the Jesuits in
that district, retaining the office until his death thirty-five
years later. Buston wrote several works to further the
instruction and conversion to Christianity of the natives; his
writings are the earliest known to have been printed in
Hindustan. Buston's published works are: "Arte da lingoa
cararina", a grammar of the language spoken in Canara, a
district on the Malabar coast. It is written in Portuguese, the
language used by Europeans on that coast. Father Diogo de
Ribeiro had the work printed, with his own additions, at Goa, in
1640. "Doutrina christã em lingua bramana" (1632); "Discurso
sobre a vida de Jesus Christo" (Rachol, 1649); "Purana", a
collection of poems written in the Indian language, illustrating
the chief mysteries of Christianity. Buston, at the time of his
death, was held in general repute as an apostle and a saint.
SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliographie des écrivains de la compagnie de
Jésus, II, 409, 470; JÖCHER, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon, I.
D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.
John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, Third Marquess of Bute
John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, Third Marquess of Bute
Born at Mountstuart, Bute, 12 September, 1847; d. at Dumfries
House, Ayrshire, 9 October, 1900, was the only child of the
second Marquess by his second wife, Lady Sophia Hastings, and
succeeded to the family honours when only six months old. His
mother died in 1859, and after some disputes between his
guardians he was sent to Harrow and subsequently to Christ
Church, Oxford. Here he came under the influence of the advanced
section of the Anglican Church, whose tenets his keen and
logical intellect quickly saw to be inconsistent with
non-communion with the Catholic Church. Bute's letters to one of
his very few intimate friends during his Oxford career show with
what conscientious care he worked out the religious question for
himself. On the 8th of December, 1868, he was received into the
Church by Monsignor Capel at a convent in Southwark, and a
little later was confirmed by Pius IX, in Rome. He was present
in Rome during part of the sittings of the Vatican Council,
travelled afterwards in the East, and then returned home to
settle down on his extensive estates in Scotland and Wales.
In April, 1872, he married the Hon. Gwendolen Howard, eldest
daughter of the first Lord Howard of Glossup, and had by her
three sons and a daughter. A scholar and somewhat of a recluse
by temperament, Bute had a high sense of public duty, and
admirably fulfilled his functions as a great landowner and
employer of labour. The first peer of modern times to undertake
municipal office, he served both as Mayor of Cardiff and (twice)
as Provost of Rothesay, in his titular island. His munificence
was in proportion to his vast wealth (derived chiefly from his
property in Cardiff), and innumerable poor Catholic missions
throughout Britain, as well as private individuals, could
testify to his lavish, though not indiscriminate generosity. A
patron of learning throughout his career, he expended large sums
in the assistance of impecunious scholars and in the publication
of costly and erudite works. He was for several years Lord
Rector of St. Andrews University, to which, as well as to
Glasgow University, he was a munificent benefactor. Bute was a
Knight of the Thistle, and also a Knight Grand Cross of St.
Gregory and of the Holy Sepulchre. His personal habits were
simple; but as a lover of art, with means to gratify his taste,
he surrounded himself in his various splendid homes with much
that was artistic and beautiful. His last years were clouded by
a long and trying illness, patiently borne; and he died as he
had lived, a devout and humble Catholic, a few weeks after his
fifty-third birthday.
Bute's chief published works are: "The Roman Breviary translated
into English" (2 vols., 1879); "Ancient Language of the Natives
of Teneriffe" (1891); "The Alleged Haunting of B----- House"
(1899); "The Altus of St. Columba" (1882); "Early Days of Sir
William Wallace" (1876); "David, Duke of Rothesay" (1894); "Form
of Prayers, Christmas Services, etc." (1875, 1896); many
articles in the "Scottish Review"; "Address at St. Andrews
University" (published in Knight's "Rectorial Addresses").
D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR
Jacques Buteux
Jacques Buteux
French missionary in Canada. Born at Abbeville, in Picardy, 11
April, 1600; slain by the Iroquois savages, 10 May, 1652. He
entered the Society of Jesus in October, 1620, studied at La
Flèche (1622-25), was an instructor at Caen (1625-29), and after
his course of theology in la Flèche (1629-33) became prefect at
the College of Clermont. In 1634 he went to Canada and was sent
to the new settlement of Three Rivers, where he remained for
eighteen years, ministering with extraordinary zeal to the
Montagnais and the Algonquin tribes. though of frail and
delicate physique, his soul was fired with an ardent desire for
suffering, which nothing could satisfy. It was this trait in his
character which most distinguished him from the other heroic men
who had devoted their lives to the same work. In truth, no
peril, however great, ever blanched his cheek or stayed his hand
when there was a question of serving God or saving a soul. He
was endowed with a very special grace for instilling sentiments
of piety into the hearts of the Indians, and those under his
care were recognized by a tenderness of devotion and a spirit of
faith which were lasting and altogether remarkable. Buteux
himself has drawn a vivid picture of one of his apostolic
journeys through a Canadian wilderness at the end of winter, of
traversing almost pathless forests, crossing mountains, lakes,
and rivers, wading knee deep in melting snow, and being unable
on account of all these difficulties to carry enough food for
more than "warding off death, rather than supporting life." his
death occurred on one of his journeys to the Attikamègues, a
Montagnais tribe dwelling on the upper St. Maurice River. A
troop of Iroquois lying in ambush riddled his upper right arm
and breast with bullets, while the blows of their tomahawks
completed the sacrifice. Mother Mary of the Incarnation writes
that "his death was an incredible loss to the mission." Father
Buteux has left, besides other documents, an interesting account
of the captivity of Father Isaac Jogues.
Rochemonteix, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siècle
(Paris, 1896, I, 294, 265; Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, VI, 326.
IX, 307; XXXVII, 9, 19-67; LXXII, 114-115; Sommervogel,
Bibliographie des éscrevains de la compagnie de Jésus, II, 471;
VII, 1953.
EDWARD P. SPILLANE
Alban Butler
Alban Butler
Historian, b. 10 October, 1710, at Appletree, Northamptonshire,
England; d. at St-Omer, France, 15 May, 1773. He shares with the
venerable Bishop Challoner the reputation of being one of the
two most prominent Catholic students during the first half of
the dreary eighteenth century, when the prospects of English
Catholics were at their lowest. After the death of his father in
1712, he was sent to the celebrated "Dame Alice's School", at
Fernyhalgh, in Lancashire. From thence while still young he was
transferred to the English College at Douai, where he went
through the full course, and was ordained priest in 1735. He had
already gained a reputation for extraordinary diligence and
regularity, and was asked to remain at the college as professor,
first of philosophy, later on of theology. During his years at
Douai, he devoted himself to what became the great work of his
life, "The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal
Saints". His mastery of ancient and modern languages fitted him
specially for a task which involved such wide reading, while his
unremitting industry and steady perseverance enabled him to
overcome all obstacles. He also assisted Dr. Challoner, by
preparing matter for the latter's "Memoirs of Missionary
Priests", the standard work on the martyrs of the reign of
Elizabeth and later. Butler's notes are still preserved at
Oscott College.
In 1745 Alban Butler was chosen to accompany the Earl of
Shrewsbury and his two brothers, James and Thomas Talbot, both
afterwards bishops, on a tour through Europe. On his return he
acted as mission priest in various parts of the Midland
District, to which he belonged by origin. Though ever seeking
leisure for study, we are told that he was precise in the
discharge of all his duties, and his time was always at the
disposal of the poor or others who had a claim upon him. We next
find him acting as chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk, whose nephew
(and heir presumptive), the Hon. Edward Howard, he accompanied
to Paris as tutor. During his residence there, Butler at length
completed his work on the "Lives of the Saints", on which he had
been engaged nearly thirty years. It contains biographies of
more than 1,600 saints arranged in order of date; and is a
monument of work and research. It was published anonymously, in
London, in 1756-59, nominally in four, really in seven octavo
volumes. This was the only edition which appeared during the
author's lifetime; but there have been many others since, and
the work has been translated into Italian and French.
In 1766 the presidency of the English College at St-Omer, in
France, falling vacant by the elevation of Thomas Talbot to the
episcopate, Alban Butler was appointed to succeed his former
pupil, no doubt that he might be placed where he would have
greater facilities for study. The college had formerly belonged
to the Jesuits, but had been handed over to the secular clergy
by the French Government when the Society of Jesus was banished
from France. The Douai authorities accepted the college in order
to save it from being confiscated, with the intention of
restoring it to its owners should circumstances ever permit. The
Jesuits, however, resented their action, and under these
circumstances, Alban Butler hesitated about accepting the
postion offered him; but we are told by his nephew and
biographer, Charles Butler, that having taken counsel of the
Bishops of Amiens and Boulogne, he was advised that he could
accept the post with a safe conscience. A few years later the
general suppression of the Society of Jesus throughout the world
put an end to any doubt on the matter. Butler found, however,
that his hopes of leading a studious life were doomed to
disappointment, for his reputation by this time was such that no
less than four bishops of neighbouring dioceses, Arras,
Boulogne, St-Omer, and Ypres, continually sought his advice, and
invested him with faculties as vicar-general. Thus during the
concluding years of his life he had to devote himself to active
work more than at any previous time. He was buried in the parish
church of St-Denis almost opposite to the English College at St-
Omer. Since the Revolution, all traces of his tomb have
disappeared. His works include: "Letters to a Gentleman on
Bower's Lives of the Popes" (1754); "Lives of the Saints"
(1756-59; many times republished); "Life of Mary of the Holy
Cross" (1767). After his death Bishop Challoner published "The
Movable Feasts and Fasts"; and Charles Butler edited: "Travels"
(1791), "Meditations" (1791) and, "Life of Sir Tobie Matthews"
(1795).
BUTLER, Life; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict.
Eng. Cath.; KIRK, Biog. Collections, MS.
BERNARD WARD
Charles Butler
Charles Butler
One of the most prominent figures among the English Catholics of
his day, b. in London, 1750, d. 2 June, 1832.
He belonged to an ancient Northamptonshire family, and was a
nephew of the Rev. Alban Butler, the author of "The Lives of the
Saints". After spending two or three years at a private school
at Hammersrnith, he was sent to the preparatory house at
Equerchin, dependent on the English College at Douai, then to
the college itself, where he went through the full course. On
his return to England he gave himself to the study of law. Owing
to his religion, he was unable to become a barrister; so he
followed the example of a large class of Catholics of that day,
who became conveyancers and practised in chambers. He studied
successively under Mr. Duane and Mr. Maire, both conveyancers of
eminence, and Catholics. In 1775 he began to practise, and
continued for over forty years. From the first he was very
successful, and for more than half the period named he was
acknowledged as the first conveyancer of the day. Among his
pupils were some distinguished men, notably Sir Thomas Denman,
afterwards attorney-general. Butler was not, however, content
with his position. The fact that he could not be called to the
Bar was a continual mortification to him, and it was chiefly
this which led him to take an active part in the efforts of
Catholics to obtain the repeal of the Penal Laws. He was elected
secretary to the committee of laymen appointed for this end, and
he put his heart and soul into the work. This brought him into
the dissensions which unhappily existed at that time between
laymen and the bishops. From the first Butler sided with the
former, and the "Blue Books" which were the official
publications of the committee, were almost entirely written by
him. Notwithstanding the internal dissensions among the Catholic
body, the bill for their partial relief was passed through
Parliament in 1791, and Butler the first to profit by the
enactment, was called to the Bar that year. The disputes
connected with the Catholic Committee brought under direct
conflict with Milner, then a simple priest. Early in the
nineteenth century, when the Veto Question arose, Milner, by
this time a bishop, became the strong opponent of Butler,
against whom he wrote and spoke for many years. In the end, by
the aid of O'Connell, Catholic Emancipation was passed in 1829,
without the concession of any kind of veto.
With such an active life both professional and political, we may
wonder how Charles Butler could have found time for any literary
pursuits; but by a habit of early rising, a systematic division
of his time, and unceasing industry, he contrived, as he himself
tells us, to provide himself with an abundance of literary
hours. His writings were many, and their variety indicate an
extraordinary versatility of talent. He could write with
facility on such different subjects as law, history, music,
social questions, and Holy Scripture. Among his own profession
his work on Coke-Littleton, on which he collaborated with Mr.
Hargrave, is best known; among the general Catholic public his
"Historical Memoirs of English, Scottish and Irish Catholics"
was most read. This work brought him again into conflict with
Bishop Milner, who replied with his "Supplementary Memoirs".
Charles Butler was married in 1776 to Mary, daughter of John
Eystom, of Hendred, Berks, by whom he had one son, who died
young, and two daughters. In private life he was a devout
Catholic; even Milner admitted that he might with truth be
called an ascetic. Every Catholic work of importance numbered
him among its chief subscribers. He survived his opponent, Dr.
Milner, and lived to see Catholic emancipation. One of the
consolations of his declining years was his elevation to the
dignity of King's Counsel after the passing of the Act, an
occasion on which he received a special message of
congratulation from the king.
There are two miniatures of him in possession of his grandson,
Judge Stonor, one of which is the original of the engraving in
the first edition of the "Historical Memoirs"; there is also an
oil painting of him as a boy at Douai, and a bust at Lincoln's
Inn.
His chief works are: "Hargrave's Coke on Littleton" (eight
editions, 1775-1831); "On Impressing Seamen" (1777); "Horae
Biblicae" (1797-1802); "Life of Alban Butler" (1800); "Horae
Juridicae Subsecivae" (1804); Lives of Fenelon (1811) and
Bossuet (1812); "Trappist Abbots and Thomas à Kempis" (1814);
"Symbols of Faith of the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant
Churches" (1816); "The French Church (1817); "Church Music"
(1818); "Historical Memoirs of English, Scottish, and Irish
Catholics" (three editions, 1819-22); "Reminiscences" (1822);
"Continuation of Alban Butler's Saints' Lives" (1823); "Life of
Erasmus" (1825); "Book of the Roman Catholic Church" (1825);
vindication of preceding (1826); appendix to same (1826); "Life
of Grotius" (1826); "The Coronation Oath" (1827); "Reply to
Answers" to same (1828); "Memoirs of d'Aguesseau and Account of
Roman and Canon Law" (1830).
BERNARD WARD
Mary Joseph Butler
Mary Joseph Butler
First Irish Abbess of the Irish Benedictine Abbey of Our Lady of
Grace, at Ypres, Flanders, b. at Callan, County Kilkenny,
Ireland, in Dec., 1641; d. at Ypres, 22 Dec., 1723. Sent to be
educated under the care of her aunt, Lady Abbess Knatchbull of
the English Benedictine Dames at Ghent, she petitioned, when
twelve years old, to be received into the order, a request
granted two years later. She made her religious profession 4
Nov., 1657 at the English Benedictine convent at Boulogne, at
the age of sixteen. In 1665 the mother-house of Ghent made
another foundation, at Ypres, with Dame Beaumont as abbess, but
as the house did not thrive under her auspices, it was decided,
upon her death in 1682, to convert the house at Ypres into a
national foundation for the Irish Benedictine nuns of the
various houses founded from Ghent. Dame Butler accordingly was
sent to Ypres in 1683, and, on the death of the second abbess,
in 1686, was elected Abbess of the Irish Dames of Ypres, 29
August. Soon after her election she was called upon to take a
leading part in a new Benedictine foundation in Dublin, set on
foot by King James II. By letters-patent or charter, which is
dated in the sixth year of his reign, and still preserved in the
convent of Ypres, King James confers upon this his "first and
chief Royal Monastery of Gratia Dei", an annuity of one hundred
pounds sterling to be paid forever out of his exchequer, and
appoints his "well-beloved Dame Mary Butler" first abbess. Her
brother was King James's Chief Cupbearer for Ireland, a title
hereditary in the Butler family, as their name implies. Having
overcome many difficulties Abbess Butler set out for Dublin in
the year 1688, and in passing through London was presented with
her nuns in the Benedictine habit to the Queen at Whitehall.
Towards the end of the year she arrived in the Irish capital,
and took up her abode in a house in Great Ship Street. Here the
Divine Office and regular observance were at once begun and a
school opened. About thirty young girls of the first families
were entrusted to the nuns for their education and no less than
eighteen of them expressed a wish to become religious. But the
good work was rudely interrupted by the entry of the usurper
William's forces into Dublin, after the battle of the Boyne (1
or 11 July, 1690). The convent was sacked by his soldiery, and
the nuns forced to seek refuge in a neighbouring house, but the
church plate and other treasures were saved by the presence of
mind of a lay sister, Placida Holmes, who disguised herself in
secular clothes, and mingled with the plunderers. On the closing
of the Dublin convent, the Duke of Ormonde assured his cousin,
Abbess Butler, of his special protection, should she consent to
remain in Ireland, but she decided to return to Ypres, upon
which the duke procured for her, from the Prince of Orange, a
passport (still preserved at Ypres) permitting her and her nuns
to leave the country without molestation.
On her arrival at Ypres she resumed conventual life in extreme
poverty with only a few lay sisters to assist her. So great
indeed was their destitution that the bishop strongly urged her
to sell the house and retire whithersoever she pleased, but she
would not abandon the work, and her faith was rewarded, for at
length in the year 1700, she had the happiness of professing
several new subjects (among them two Irish ladies from the
French Court) who assisted her in keeping up the choir and
regular observance. She continued to govern her flock with much
wisdom and discretion until the year 1723, when she died in the
sixty-sixth year of her religious profession, and the
thirty-sixth year of her abbatial dignity. King James II, and
more especially his Queen, Mary of Modena, were great
benefactors and friends of Abbess Butler, and of the Irish
convent of Ypres, which she saved from extinction and which has
survived ever since. It enjoys the distinction of being the only
religious house in all the Low Countries which remained standing
during the storms of the French Revolution and of being the only
Irish Abbey of the Benedictine Order.
NOLAN, Hist. of Royal Irish Abbey of Ypres (from MSS. in Convent
archives).
PATRICK NOLAN
Buttress
Buttress
A pilaster, pier, or body of masonry projecting beyond the main
face of the wall and intended to strengthen the wall at
particular points and also to counterbalance the thrust of a
roof or its vaulting. The term "counterfort" is used when the
projection is on the inside. A flying buttress is an arch,
resting at one end on a detached pier and it carries the thrust
of the nave vault over the aisles or cloister.
THOMAS H. POOLE
Ven. Christopher Buxton
Ven. Christopher Buxton
Priest and martyr, b. in Derbyshire; d. at Canterbury, 1
October, 1588. He was a scholar of Ven. Nicholas Garlick at the
Grammar-School, Tideswell, in the Peak District, studied for the
priesthood at Reims and Rome, and was ordained in 1586. He left
Rome the next year, and soon after his arrival in England was
apprehended and condemned to death for his priesthood. He
suffered at Oaten Hill, Canterbury, together with Venerables
Robert Wilcox and Edward Campion. Being so young, it was thought
that his constancy might be shaken by the sight of the barbarous
butchery of his companions, and his life was offered him if he
would conform to the new religion, but he courageously answered
that he would not purchase a corruptible life at such a price,
and that if he had a hundred lives he would willingly surrender
them all in defence of his faith. While in the Marshalsea Prison
he wrote a "Rituale", the manuscript of which is now preserved
as a relic at Olney, Bucks. He sent this manuscript to a priest,
as a last token of his friendship, the day before he was taken
from the prison to suffer martyrdom.
[ Note: Christopher Buxton and Robert Wilcox were beatified by
Pope Pius XI in 1929.]
CHALLONER, Memoirs; FOLEY, Records; Roman Diary (London, 1880);
MORRIS, Catholics of York.
BEDE CAMM
Byblos
Byblos
A titular see of Phoenicia. Byblos is the Greek name of Gebal
"The Mountain", one of the oldest cities in Phoenicia Prima,
quoted in an Egyptian inscription as early as 1550 B.C. Its
inhabitants were skilled in stone and wood-carving (III Kings,
v, 18) and in shipbuilding (Ezech., xxvii, 9). It was governed
by kings, the last of whom was dethroned by Pompey. It is
celebrated chiefly for its temple of Adonis, or Thammouz, whose
voluptuous worship spread thence over Greece and Italy. It was
the native place of Philo, a Greek historian and grammarian. As
a Christian see it was suffragan to Tyre and according to one
tradition, its first bishop was John Mark, the companion of St.
Paul and St. Barnabas. Five other bishops are known before 553
(Lequien, Or. Chr., II, 821). The city was destroyed by an
earthquake in 551 (Malalas, Chronogr., XVIII, P.G., XCVII, 704)
and was in ruins as late as 570 (Pseudo-Antoninus, ed. Geyer,
159). The Crusaders took it in 1104; it then had a Greek bishop,
but he was obliged to yield his see to a Latin successor, and
from 1130 to 1500 about twenty Latin bishops are known (Lequien,
Or. Chr., III, 1177; Eubel, Hier. Cath., I, 139; II, 119). Many
Latin bishops are mentioned in "Revue Bénédictine", 1904, 98,
sqq.; 1907, 63, sq. The modern Arabic name is Gebail. It is a
mere village with about 1,000 inhabitants, almost all Christians
(650 Maronites). There are thirteen churches; three of them are
very beautiful and trace their origin to the Crusades. There is
also at Byblos a castle of the same time, likewise some ruins of
temples of Adonis and Isis. Gebail is yet a diocese for the
Orthodox Greeks. For the Catholic or Melkite Greeks, the title
of Byblos is united with Beirut, and for the Maronites with that
of Batroun (Botrys).
RENAN, Mission de Phenicie (Paris, 1864), 153-218; Le Mois
litteraire et pittoresque (Paris, July, 1906); REY, Etude sur
les monuments de l'architecture des Croises en Syrie (Paris,
1871), 217-219; ROUVIER, La necropole de Gebal- Byblos in Revue
biblique, VIII, 553-565.
S. VAILHÉ
Bye-Altar
Bye-Altar
An altar that is subordinate to the central or high altar. The
term is generally applied to altars that are situated in the bay
or bays of the nave, transepts, etc.
THOMAS H. POOLE
Byllis
Byllis
A titular see of Epirus Nova (Albania), whose title is often
added to that of Apollonia among the suffragans of Dyrrachium
(Durazzo). It was situated west of Avlona, on the coast, near
the modern village Gradica, or Gradiste, a Slav name substituted
in later episcopal "Notitiae" for the old Illyrian name Byllis
(Not. episc. III, 620; X, 702). Hierocles (653, 4) knows only of
Byllis. Felix, Bishop of Apollonia and Byllis, was present at
the Council of Ephesus, in 431. At Chalcedon in 451, Eusebius
subscribes simply as Bishop of Apollonia; on the other hand,
Philocharis subscribes as Bishop of Byllis only in the letter of
the bishops of Epirus Nova to the Emperor Leo (458).
LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., II, 248; FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum,
VII, 395; GAMS, Series episcop., 394.
L. PETIT
William Byrd
William Byrd
English composer, born in London in 1542 or 1543; died 4 July,
1623. He was the son of a musician, and studied music
principally under Thomas Tallis. He became organist at Lincoln
Cathedral in 1563, chorister in the Chapel Royal in 1570, and in
1575 received the title of Organist of the Chapel Royal without
being obliged to perform the functions of that office. Byrd was
the most distinguished contrapuntist and the most prolific
composer of his time in England. Fétis calls him the English
Palestrina. He was the first Englishman to write madrigals, a
form which originated in Italy in the thirteenth century, and
received its highest development in the sixteenth century at the
hands of Arcadelt and other masters. An organist and performer
of the first order upon the virginals, Byrd wrote for the latter
instrument an enormous number of compositions, many of which are
played today. His chief significance lies, however, in his
compositions for the Church, of which he produced a great many.
In 1607 he published a collection of gradualia for the whole
ecclesiastical year, among which is to be found a three-part
setting of the words of the multitude in the Passion according
to St. John. A modern edition of this setting was published in
1899. In 1611 "Psalms, Songs and Sonnets, Some Solemn, Others
Joyful, Framed to the Life of the Words, Fit for Voyces or
Viols, etc." appeared. Probably in the same year was issued
"Parthenia", a collection of virginal music, in which Byrd
collaborated with J. Bull and Orlando Gibbons. Three masses --
for three, four, and five voices, respectively -- belong to the
composer's best period. The one for five voices was reprinted by
the Musical Antiquarian Society in 1841, and in 1899 the same
work was issued by Breitkopf and Hartel. Two of his motets,
"Domine, ne irascaris" and "Civitas sancti tui", with English
texts, are in the repertoire of most Anglican cathedrals. In
spite of the harrowing religious conditions under which he
lived, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I, Byrd
remained faithful to his principles and duties as a Catholic, as
is shown in his life and by his works. In his last will and
testament he prays "that he may live and dye a true and perfect
member of the Holy Catholike Churche withoute which I beleeve
there is noe salvacon for me".
The Music Story Series: English Music, 1604 to 1904 (London and
New York, 1906); RITTER, Music in England (New York, 1833);
GROVE, Dictionary of Music.
JOSEPH OTTEN
Andrew Byrne
Andrew Byrne
Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas, U.S.A., b. at Navan, Co. Meath,
Ireland, 5 December, 1802; d. at Helena, Arkansas, 10 June,
1862. He was an ecclesiastical student when, in 1820, Bishop
England sought volunteers for the mission of the newly created
Diocese of Charleston (South Carolina), and he accompanied the
bishop to the United States. He was ordained at Charleston, 11
November, 1827, and after active missionary work in South and
North Carolina was for several years vicar-general of the
diocese. In 1836 he removed to New York City, where he served at
St. Patrick's, St. James's and the church of the Nativity, and
finally altered, in 1843, the famous Carroll Hall, which might
be termed the cradle of the public school system of New York,
into St. Andrew's church. While pastor there in 1844, the new
Diocese of Little Rock, comprising the State of Arkansas and all
of the Indian Territory, was created, and Father Byrne was named
its first bishop. He was consecrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral,
New York City, 10 March, 1844, at the same time that the Rev.
John McCloskey (afterwards Cardinal) was consecrated coadjutor
of New York, and the Rev. William Quarter, Bishop of Chicago.
There were then in Arkansas only about 700 Catholics, with one
priest and two churches. Shortly before Bishop Byrne died, he
claimed that the number of Catholics had increased largely, with
nine or more priests, eleven churches, thirty stations, and
twelve schools and academies. He visited Ireland several times
to obtain colabourers and assistants in the cause of religion
and education. He introduced the Sisters of Mercy from Dublin
and at the time of his death had almost completed arrangements
for the starting of a college at Fort Smith by the Christian
Brothers. He was one of the prelates attending the Sixth
Provincial Council of Baltimore in May, 1846, and the First
Provincial Council of New Orleans in 1856. At the Second
Baltimore Council, in 1833, he acted as Bishop England's
theologian.
Catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1864); SHEA, The Catholic Church in
N. Y. City (New York, 1878); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased
Bishops (New York, 1872); BAYLEY, Brief Sketch of the Early
History of the Catholic Church on the Island of New York (New
York, 1870).
THOMAS F. MEEHAN
Richard Byrne
Richard Byrne
Brevet brigadier general, United States Army, b. in Co. Cavan,
Ireland, 1832; d. at Washington, 10 June, 1864. He emigrated
from his native land to New York in 1844 and five years later
enlisted in the regular army of the United States, joining the
Second Cavalry, a regiment then commanded by Colonel E. V.
Sumner. In this regiment young Byrne distinguished himself in
the Indian campaigns in Florida and Oregon. At the breaking out
of the Civil War he was, on the recommendation of his old
commander, Colonel Sumner, commissioned First Lieutenant in the
Fifth Cavalry, one of the new regiments authorized by Congress.
During the campaigns of 1861 and 1862 he remained with the
regiment of regulars and was then appointed by Governor Andrew,
Colonel of the Twenty-Eighth Massachusetts Volunteers, an Irish
regiment of which he took command, 18 October, 1862. In the
November following, this regiment was attached to the famous
Meagher's Irish Brigade and with it participated with special
gallantry in all the fierce conflicts in which the Army of the
Potomac was subsequently engaged. At its head Colonel Byrne
charged up the fatal slope of Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg,
and after it, like the other regiments of the brigade, had been
almost wiped out in the sanguinary conflicts at Chancellorsville
and Gettysburg, he was sent back to Massachusetts to recruit its
ranks during the winter and spring of 1863 and 1864. When the
campaign reopened in May he returned to the front and as the
senior officer took command of the Irish Brigade. Two weeks
after assuming command, on 3 June, 1864, he fell, mortally
wounded, while leading the brigade at the attack on the
entrenchments at Cold Harbor, Virginia. He lived long enough to
be conveyed to Washington, where his wife reached him before he
died. His commission as brigadier general had just been made out
by President Lincoln, but he was dead before it could be
officially presented to him. His remains were sent to New York
and buried in Calvary Cemetery.
CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns (Boston, 1869);
The Emerald, files (New York, 8 January, 1870).
THOMAS F. MEEHAN
William Byrne
William Byrne
Missionary and educator, born in County Wicklow, Ireland, in
1780; died at Bardstown, Kentucky, U.S.A., 5 June, 1833. He was
one of a large family for whom he was obliged by the death of
his father to become breadwinner. He desired to be a priest, but
circumstances denied him more than a common elementary
education, imparted to him by a pious uncle. Many of his
relatives were among the ill-starred patriots of the rebellion
of 1798, and the cruel and bloody scenes of that year enacted
near his home made a vivid impression on his youthful mind. In
his twenty-fifth year came his opportunity to emigrate to the
United States, where, shortly after his arrival he went to
Georgetown College and applied for admission into the Society of
Jesus. His advanced age and lack of classical education,
however, convinced him, after some months' stay there, that he
could not reasonably hope to obtain in the Society, for many
years at least, his ambition for ordination to the priesthood.
He therefore left Georgetown, and by advice of Archbishop
Carroll went to Mount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg. Here the
Rev. John Dubois, the president, received him with sympathy,
pointed out a course of study, and finding him an excellent
disciplinarian, made him prefect of the institution. He was
nearly thirty years of age when he began to study Latin, but his
zeal and perseverance conquered all obstacles.
In order to advance more rapidly in his studies, he entered St.
Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, but the surroundings were not
congenial, and he remained there only a short time. He had been
ordained a subdeacon, and Bishop Flaget accepted his offer of
service for the Diocese of Bardstown, Kentucky. He made further
studies at St. Thomas's Seminary there, and was then ordained
priest by Bishop David, 18 September, 1819, with his friend
George A. M. Elder, whom he had met at Emmitsburg. They were the
first priests ordained at Bardstown, and by Bishop David, who
was consecrated 15 August, 1819. Shortly after his ordination,
Father Byrne was appointed to the care of St. Mary's and St.
Charles's missions, visiting also the small congregation of
Louisville, sixty miles distant, and labouring at all times with
most indefagitable industry. The ignorance of the people and the
necessity of establishing some institution for elementary
instruction appealed to him strongly, and in the spring of 1821
he opened St. Mary's College, near Bardstown, in an old stone
building that stood on a farm he had purchased with money begged
from those who sympathized with his project. He had about fifty
boys to begin with, one of them being Martin John Spaulding,
later the famous Archbishop of Baltimore, who even then was so
precious in the display of his abilities that at the age of
fifteen he was appointed to teach mathematics to his fellow
students. Father Bryne, with indomitable energy, at first filled
every office in the school and attended to his missionary duties
as well. His college had become very popular in Kentucky when it
was destroyed by fire. This set-back seemed only to give him new
energy, and he soon had the college rebuilt. A second fire
ruined a large part of the new structure, but nothing daunted,
he went on and again placed the institution on a firm
foundation.
It is estimated that from 1821 to 1833, during the time St.
Mary's College was under his immediate direction, at least
twelve hundred students received instruction there, and carried
the benefits of their education to all parts of Kentucky, some
of them establishing private schools on their return to their
respective neighbourhoods. Father Bryne, after twelve year's
management of the college, made a gift of it to the Society of
Jesus, believing that, having established its success, his old
friends, the Jesuits, were better qualified than he was to
conduct the school. He thought of funding a new school at
Nashville, where one was much needed, and in spite of his
advanced years he wrote to Bishop Flaget that all that he
required in leaving St. Mary's to embark on this new enterprise
was his horse and ten dollars to pay his travelling expenses.
Before he could carry out the plan, however, he fell a martyr to
charity. An epidemic of cholera had broken out in the
neighbourhood, and having gone to administer the last sacraments
to a poor negro woman who lay dying of the disease, he became
infected himself, and died the following day among the Fathers
of the Society of Jesus with whom at Georgetown he had begun his
remarkable religious life.
Spalding, Miscellanea (Baltimore, 1866), 729-35; Webb, Centenary
of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884); Shea, History of
the Catholic Church in the U. S. (New York, 1892), IV, 600;
Messenger of the Sacred Heart Magazine (New York, December,
1891); Irish Celts (Detroit, 1884).
THOMAS F. MEEHAN
Byzantine Architecture
Byzantine Architecture
A mixed style, i.e. a style composed of Graeco-Roman and
Oriental elements which, in earlier centuries, cannot be clearly
separated. The form of the church used most in the west, a nave
supported on columns and an atrium (see BASILICA), appears in
many examples of the fifth century in Byzantium as well as in
Rome; the sixth century saw such churches erected in other
regions outside Rome, at Ravenna, in Istria, and in Africa. In
the West this style of building occasionally presents (in S.
Lorenzo and S. Agnes at Rome) peculiarities which are ascribed
by some authorities to Oriental origin -- galleries over the
side aisles, spirally channelled columns, and imposts between
capitals and arches. Vaulted basilicas are to be found at an
early date in Asia Minor, Syria, Africa and also at
Constantinople. But the early Etruscans and Romans were skilful
in the art of constructing vaults, even before that time; for
instance, the basilica of Constantine. The domical style, with
barrel-vaulted side aisles and transepts is a favourite with the
Orientals; many of the oldest basilicas in Asia Minor, as well
as the Church of St. Irene, Constantinople (eighth century),
carried one or more domes. This type leads naturally to the
structure in a centralized -- circular, octagonal, cruciform --
plan. That the Orient had, and still has, a peculiar preference
for such a type is well known; nevertheless, Italy also
possessed ecclesiastical buildings so planned, of which the
oldest examples belong to the fourth and fifth centuries (Sta.
Costanza, a circular building; and the baptistery of the
Lateran, an octagonal building). In ancient Roman times tombs
and baths had this sort of plan. The essential type of all these
buildings cannot, therefore, be regarded as purely Oriental, or
even specifically Byzantine. There are similar objections in the
case of subordinate architectural details. Thus the apse,
sometimes three-sided, sometimes polygonal, the narthex (a
narrow antechamber, or vestibule, instead of the large
rectangular atrium, the invariable facing of the church to the
east, the sharp-cut acanthus leaf of the capitals, and similar
characteristics of the Eastern churches cannot be definitely
ascribed to the East alone or even to Byzantium, nor do they
form a new architectural style. Some authorities, it is true,
not only go so far as to characterize the architecture of
Ravenna (exemplified in the two churches S. Apollinare and S.
Vitale) as Byzantine, but even include, without further
consideration, examples which in other respects recall the
favourite Eastern style, viz. the central portions of S. Lorenzo
at Milan and of the round church of S. Stefano Rotondo at Rome.
Only this much is certain: that in those early centuries local
diversities are found everywhere; and that, even although Italy
may have received the most manifold influences from the East,
and particularly from Byzantium, still, on the other hand, the
language, laws, and customs of Rome prevailed in Byzantium, or
at least were strongly represented there.
In the church, now the mosque, of St. Sophia (Hagia Sophia --
"Divine Wisdom"), built by Justinian, all the principal forms of
the early Christian churches are represented. A rotunda is
enclosed in a square, and covered with a dome which is supported
in the direction of the long axis of the building by half-domes
over semicircular apses. In this manner a basilica, 236 feet
long and 98 feet wide, and provided with domes, is developed out
of a great central chamber. This basilica is still more extended
by the addition of smaller apses penetrating the larger apses.
Then the domical church is developed to the form of a long
rectangle by means of two side aisles, which, however, are
deprived of their significance by the intrusion of massive
piers. In front of all this, on the entrance side, are placed a
wide atrium with colonnaded passages and two vestibules (the
exonarthex is practically obliterated). The stupendous main
dome, which is hemispherical on the interior, flatter, or
saucer-shaped, on the exterior, and pierced with forty large
windows over the cornice at its spring, has its lateral thrust
taken up by these half domes and, north and south, by arched
buttresses; the vertical thrust is received by four piers 75
feet high. The ancient system of column and entablature has here
only a subordinate significance, supporting the galleries which
open upon the nave. Light flows in through the numerous windows
of the upper and lower stories and of the domes. But above all,
the dome, with its great span carried on piers, arches, and
pendentives, constitutes one of the greatest achievements of
architecture. (These pendentives are the triangular surfaces by
means of which a circular dome can be supported on the summits
of four arches arranged on a square plan.) In other respects the
baptistery of Sta. Costanza at Rome, for example, with its
cylindrical drum under the dome, has the advantage that the
windows are placed in the drum instead of the dome.
The architects of St. Sophia were Asiatics: Anthemius of Tralles
and Isodorus of Miletus. In other great basilicas, as here,
local influences had great power in determining the character of
the architecture, e. g. the churches of the Nativity, of the
Holy Sepulchre, and of the Ascension, built in Palestine after
the time of Constantine. This is still more evident in the
costly decorations of these churches. The Oriental love of
splendour is shown in the piling up of domes and still more in
facing the walls with slabs of marble, in mosaics (either opus
sectile, small pieces, or opus Alexandrinum, large slabs cut in
suitable shapes), in gold and colour decorations, and in the
many-coloured marbles of the columns and other architectural
details. Nothing, however, seems to betray the essentially
Oriental character of Byzantine architecture so much as the
absence of work in the higher forms of sculpture, and the
transformation of high into low decoration by means of
interwoven traceries, in which the chiselled ornaments became
flatter, more linear, and lacelike. Besides the vestibules which
originally surrounded St. Sophia, the columns with their
capitals recall the antique. These columns almost invariably
supported arches instead of the architrave and were, for that
reason, reinforced by a block of stone (impost block) placed on
top and shaped to conform to the arch, as may frequently be seen
at Ravenna. Gradually, however, the capital itself was cut to
the broader form of a truncated square pyramid, as in St.
Sophia. The capitals are at times quite bare, when they serve at
the same time as imposts or intermediate supporting blocks, at
other times they are marked with monograms or covered with a
network of carving, the latter transforming them into basketlike
capitals. Flat ornamentations of flowers and animals are also
found, or leaves arbitrarily arranged. Much of this reminds one
of the Romanesque style, but the details are done more
carefully. The fortresslike character of the church buildings,
the sharp expression of the constructive forms, the squatty
appearance of the domes, the bare grouping of many parts instead
of their organic connexion -- these are all more in accordance
with the coarser work of the later period than with the elegance
of the Greek. Two other types of Justinian's time are presented
by the renovated church of the Apostles and the church of Sts.
Sergius and Bacchus. Both churches are in the capital. The
latter somewhat resembles S. Vitale in Ravenna. It is a
dome-crowned octagon with an exterior aisle. The former church
(now destroyed) was built on the plan of a Greek Cross (with
four equal arms) with a dome over the crossing and one over each
arm.
During the period of the Macedonian emperors, Basil I (867-886)
and Leo VI (886-912), an upward trend in politics, literature,
and art set in. The Greek basilica, which is a lengthened
structure, barrel-vaulted and provided with one or more domes,
is also widely represented in this period, while the western
form of basilica, with the wooden ceiling, is completely
discarded. A type appearing more frequently is the domical
church plan or the Greek-cross plan. The Koimesis, or Dormitio,
in Nicaea (ninth century) has a clear basilica plan. This is
also true of the church of the Holy Mother of God (Hagia
Theotokos) at Constantinople, dating from the tenth century, and
of the churches of Mt. Athos. The church at Skripu in Boeotia,
of the same period, has indeed three naves each ending in an
apse, but the dome crowns the middle of the building as in the
Greek- cross type. The exteriors of these churches, which are
usually rather small, are treated with greater care and are
artistically elaborated with alternations of stone and brick,
smaller domes over the vestibules, a decidedly richer system of
domes, and the elevation of these domes by means of drums. The
interiors are decorated most gorgeously. It seems that they
could not do enough in this respect. This can still be seen in
the church of St. Luke in Phocis, at Daphni, in the Nea Moni at
Chio, and others. In this period the perfected art of the
capital becomes the model for the empire as well as for regions
beyond its borders: Syria, Armenia, Russia, Venice, Middle and
Southern Italy, and Sicily. For the West, it is only necessary
to mention the church of St. Mark at Venice (978-1096).
After its occupation by the Crusaders (1204), Constantinople
partly lost its character and at the same time the far-reaching
influence of its intercourse with Western nations. There still
remained four centres of Byzantine art: the capital itself, Mt.
Athos, Hellas, and Trebizond. The architecture of Mt. Athos
presents the most faithful reflection of the Byzantine style.
The model of the church of the monastery of Laura, belonging to
the previous period, is more or less faithfully reproduced. A
dome, supported on four sides by barrel vaults, stands directly
over the middle of the transept, which is terminated at either
end by a round apse. A narthex, or rather two lead into the
lengthened main hall. The real architectural ornaments are
forced into the background by the frescoes which take the place
of the costly mosaics and which practically cover all available
wall surface. The architecture of this period remained
stationary. It continued unchanged in the countries of the Greek
Rite after the fall of Constantinople (1453).
G. GIETMANN
Byzantine Art
Byzantine Art
The art of the Eastern Roman Empire and of its capital
Byzantium, or Constantinople. The term denotes more especially
those qualities which distinguish this art from that of other
countries, or which have caused it to exert an influence upon
the art of regions outside of the Eastern Empire. Christian art
was dependent for the representation of its new conceptions upon
the forms which the time and place of its origin happened to
offer. In the beginning, whether at Rome, Ravenna, or Byzantium
(Constantinople), it was equally influenced by classical art and
by Eastern inclination to allegory. It is a distinguishing
characteristic of Constantinople, however, that it was able to
maintain a more uniform classical tradition in the face of
manifold Oriental influences. These two elements, from the time
of Constantine, developed in the Byzantine art more and more of
an individual character, though account must also be taken of
the friendly intercourse with Western Europe during several
hundred years. Beginning with the seventh century, the contrast
between the art of the Eastern Empire and that of the Western
grew more marked, and Byzantine art underwent a change. It rose
to great splendour under the Macedonian emperors (867-1056),
then declined up to 1453, and has since existed in the East in a
petrified form, so to speak, up to the present time.
The Byzantine Question
In regard to the first period of Byzantine art, which closed
either before the reign of Justinian or at the end of the sixth
century, scholars differ greatly. Some date Byzantine art proper
from the time of Constantine's establishment of his capital.
They base this opinion upon certain differences between the art
remains of the first period of the Eastern Roman Empire and
those of the Western Roman Empire, which differences they
maintain are essential. Other scholars hold these peculiarities
to be unessential, since they find them here and there in
Western countries as well, a fact which the former critics
ascribe to Oriental influence. Still other scholars disagree
with both views, and distinguish between Oriental art and that
specifically Byzantine; that is, between the art of Byzantium,
or Constantinople, and that of her dependent provinces, Asia
Minor, Syria, Persia, and Egypt. This is a fairly good solution
of the "Byzantine question". But as it is difficult to
distinguish in detail the combinations of old classic and
Christian with Oriental art, we can only group together the
principal characteristics of the new style and its materials,
with a few examples.
Characteristics
The introduction of Eastern court ceremonial by Constantine was
accompanied in the domain of art by the appearances of
extraordinary gorgeousness and pomp, expressed, however, with
stiffness and formality. The power and pride of the new empire
offered the means for great undertakings and gave the impulse to
them. The Proconnesian marble, found in the vicinity of the
capital, and the stone obtained from other rich quarries
provided the material, and, long before this era, the art of
working in stone had reached a high state of development,
especially in Asia Minor. Moreover, the East had been from
ancient times the home of the minor arts. In Constantinople
there flourished, along with the art of decorative sculpture,
the arts of stone-carving, of working in metal and ivory, of
ornamental bronze work, of enamelling, of weaving, and the art
of miniature-painting. From classical and ancient Christian art
Byzantine genius derived a correct combination of the ideal with
truth to nature, harmonious unity along with precision in
details, as well as the fondness for mosaics, frescoes, and
pictures on panels, in opposition to the dislike of
non-Christian and sectarian Orientals to pictorial
representation. The iconoclasm of the eighth and ninth centuries
wrought great destruction in the domain of art, but these
outbreaks were successfully suppressed.
Examples
In regard to the influence of the Byzantine style on
architecture see BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE. As to the other arts a
few examples may here be given. The church of St. Sophia was
adorned in the sixth century with a splendour worthy of Solomon.
The interior was sumptuously decorated with mosaics upon a
golden background. These mosaics, it is true, with the exception
of an "Adoration of Christ by the Emperor", were destroyed, but
they were replaced later by others. Some of the walls were
ornamented with designs of grape-vines with golden leaves.
Pictures of animals decorated the walls of the portico. A silver
choir-screen rose above pillars, in the capitals of which
medallions of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, saints, and prophets
were carved. This is the so-called iconostasis. The altar was of
gold inlaid with precious stones; the altar-cloth was of
brocaded silk in which were woven pictures of Christ, the
prophets and the apostles. The ambo, according to description,
was brilliant with gold, silver, precious stones, and ivory. At
Parenzo, in Istria, and at Bauit, in Egypt, superb mosaic
pictorial ornamentation dating from the sixth century is still
preserved. A gold cross decorated with pictures in hammered work
was presented by Justin II to the church of St. Peter and is
still preserved at the Vatican. A number of ivory book- covers
are also still in existence. The illuminated manuscripts of
Rossano and Sinope date from the sixth century.
Influence
As regards the influence exerted by Byzantine art in the sixth
century there can be no doubt that the architecture of Ravenna,
though affected by other Eastern influences, strongly reminds
us, in its splendid mosaics, of Constantinople. The Proconnesian
capitals and other products of decorative art spread even more
easily. Like Ravenna, Southern Italy and Gaul came under the
influence of the East and Constantinople. Even more specifically
Byzantine is African art. In Rome the races of Byzantine art are
more difficult to discover than other Oriental influences. In
the East itself pictorial art met with opposition, and
decorative art came to the forefront. In general, however, after
the rise of the Macedonian dynasty the Byzantine style gained
the supremacy in all branches of art as well as in architecture.
The Byzantine style spread in the East as well as in Northern
Italy and Sicily. The numerous mosaic pictures, which are to be
found everywhere, still strove to imitate classical models;
their symbolism reminds us of the general symbolic tendency of
early Christianity, and their form gradually becomes more stiff
and fixed. (Painter's Book of Mount Athos.) Purely Oriental,
however, was the dislike constantly increasing for sculpture in
the round, and the preference for the flat ornamentation in
architecture. To the same Oriental influence may be attributed
the taste for costly and many-coloured stones and woven fabrics,
for goldsmith-work, and enamel. For example, in the treasury of
San Marco may be seen Byzantine reliquaries, ivory triptychs,
chalices, costly fabrics, and specimens of pictorial art. Some
are large and some small, but taken altogether they show how a
church of the eleventh century was transformed into a veritable
treasure-house. The same taste and the same characteristics of
the art of Byzantium (Constantinople) have ever since maintained
their supremacy in the East.
G. GIETMANN
The Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine Empire
The ancient Roman Empire having been divided into two parts, an
Eastern and a Western, the Eastern remained subject to
successors of Constantine, whose capital was at Byzantium or
Constantinople. The term Byzantine is therefore employed to
designate this Eastern survival of the ancient Roman Empire. The
subject will be here treated under the following divisions:
I. Byzantine Civilization;
II. Dynastic History.
The latter division of the article will be subdivided into six
heads in chronological order.
I. BYZANTINE CIVILIZATION
At the distance of many centuries and thousands of miles, the
civilization of the Byzantine Empire presents an appearance of
unity. Examined at closer range, however, firstly the
geographical content of the empire resolves itself into various
local and national divisions, and secondly the growth of the
people in civilization reveals several clearly distinguishable
periods. Taking root on Eastern soil, flanked on all sides by
the most widely dissimilar peoples -- Orientals, Finnic-Ugrians
and Slavs -- some of them dangerous neighbours just beyond the
border, others settled on Byzantine territory, the empire was
loosely connected on the west with the other half of the old
Roman Empire. And so the development of Byzantine civilization
resulted from three influences: the first Alexandrian-Hellenic,
a native product, the second Roman, the third Oriental.
+ The first period of the empire, which embraces the dynasties
of Theodosius, Leo I, Justinian, and Tiberius, is politically
still under Roman influence.
+ In the second period the dynasty of Heraclius in conflict with
Islam, succeeds in creating a distinctively Byzantine State.
+ The third period, that of the Syrian (Isaurian) emperors and
of Iconoclasm, is marked by the attempt to avoid the struggle
with Islam by completely orientalizing the land.
+ The fourth period exhibits a happy equilibrium. The Armenian
dynasty, which was Macedonian by origin, was able to extend
its sway east and west, and there were indications that the
zenith of Byzantine power was close at hand.
+ In the fifth period the centrifugal forces, which had long
been at work, produced their inevitable effect, the
aristocracy of birth, which had been forming in all parts of
the empire, and gaining political influence, at last achieved
its firm establishment on the throne with the dynasties of the
Comneni and Angeli.
+ The sixth period is that of decline; the capture of
Constantinople by the Crusaders had disrupted the empire into
several new political units; even after the restoration, the
empire of the Palaeologi is only one member of this group of
states. The expansion of the power of the Osmanli Turks
prepares the annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.
Geographically and ethnographically, the Roman Empire was never
a unit. In the western section comprising Italy and the adjacent
islands, Spain, and Africa, the Latin language and Latin culture
were predominant. Of these territories, only Africa, Sicily, and
certain parts of Italy were ever under Byzantine control for any
length of time. To the southeast, the Coptic and Syriac and, if
the name is permitted, the Palestinian nation assumed growing
importance and finally, under the leadership of the Arabs, broke
the bonds that held it to the empire. In the East proper (Asia
Minor and Armenia) lay the heart of the empire. In the southeast
of Asia Minor and on the southern spurs of the Armenian
mountains the population was Syrian. The Armenian settlements
extended from their native mountains far into Asia Minor, and
even into Europe. Armenian colonies are found on Mount Ida in
Asia Minor, in Thrace, and Macedonia. The coast lands of Asia
Minor are thoroughly Greek. The European part of the empire was
the scene of an ethnographic evolution. From ancient times the
mountains of Epirus and Illyria had been inhabited by Albanians,
from the beginning of the fifteenth century they spread over
what is now Greece, down towards southern Italy and Sicily.
Since the days of the Roman power, the Rumanians (or
Wallachians) had established themselves on both sides as well of
the Balkan as of the Pindus mountains. This people was divided
into two parts by the invasion of the Finnic-Ugrian Bulgars, and
the expansion of the Slavs. They lived as wandering shepherds,
in summer on the mountains, in winter on the plains. In the
fifth century the Slavs began to spread over the Balkan
Peninsula. At the beginning of the eighth century Cynuria in the
eastern part of the Peloponnesus, was called a "Slavic land". A
reaction, however, which set in towards the end of the eighth
century, resulted in the total extermination of the Slavs in
southern Thessaly and central Greece, and left but few in the
Peloponnesus. On the other hand, the northern part of the Balkan
Peninsula remained open to Slavic inroads. Here the Bulgars
gradually became incorporated with the Slavs, and spread from
Haemus far to the west, and into southern Macedonia. The valleys
of the Vardar and the Morava offered the Serbs tempting means of
access to the Byzantine Empire. After the Greeks and Armenians,
the Slavs have exercised most influence on the inner
configuration of the empire. The Greeks of the islands best
preserved their national characteristics. Moreover, they settled
in compact groups in the capital of the empire, and on all the
coast lands even to those of the Black Sea. They gained ground
by hellenizing the Slavs, and by emigrating to Sicily and lower
Italy.
In point of civilization, the Greeks were the predominant race
in the empire. From the second half of the sixth century, Latin
had ceased to be the language of the Government. The legislation
eventually became thoroughly Greek, both in language and spirit.
Beside the Greeks, only the Armenians had developed a
civilization of their own. The Slavs, it is true, had acquired a
significant influence over the internal and external affairs of
the empire, but had not established a Slavic civilization on
Byzantine soil, and the dream of a Roman Empire under Slavic
rule remained a mere fantasy.
In the breaking of the empire on ethnographic lines of cleavage,
it was an important feat that at least the Greeks were more
solidly united than in former centuries. The dialects of ancient
Greece had for the most part disappeared, and the Koiné of the
Hellenic period formed a point of departure for new dialects, as
well as the basis of a literary language which was preserved
with incredible tenacity and gained the ascendancy in literature
as well as in official usage. Another movement, in the sixth
century, was directed towards a general and literary revival of
the language, and, this having gradually spent itself without
any lasting results, the dialects unfortunately, became the
occasion of a further split in the nation. As the later literary
language, with its classic tendencies, was stiff and unwieldy,
as well as unsuited to meet all the exigencies of a colloquial
language, it perforce helped to widen the breach between the
literary and the humbler classes the latter having already begun
to use the new dialects. The social schism which had rent the
nation, since the establishment of a distinctively Byzantine
landed interest and the rise of a provincial nobility, was
aggravated by the prevalence of the literary language among the
governing classes, civil and ecclesiastical. Even the western
invasion could not close this breach; on the contrary, while it
confirmed the influence of the popular tongue as such, it left
the social structure of the nation untouched. The linguistic
division of the Greek nation thus begun has persisted down to
the present time.
The Middle Ages never created a great centralized economic
system. The lack of a highly organized apparatus of
transportation for goods in large quantities made each district
a separate economic unit. This difficulty was not overcome even
by a coastline naturally favourable for navigation, since the
earring capacity of medieval vessels was too small to make them
important factors in the problem of freight-transportation as we
now apprehend it. Even less effectual were the means of
conveyance employed on the roads of the empire. These roads, it
is true, were a splendid legacy from the old Roman Empire, and
were not yet in the dilapidated state to which they were later
reduced under the Turkish domination. Even today, for example,
there are remains of the Via Egnatia, connecting Constantinople
with the Adriatic Sea through Thessalonica, and of the great
military roads through Asia Minor, from Chalcedon past
Nicomedia, Ancyra and Caesarea, to Armenia, as well as of that
from Nicaea through Dorylaeum and Iconium to Tarsus and Antioch.
These roads were of supreme importance for the transportation of
troops and the conveyance of dispatches; but for the interchange
of goods of any bulk, they were out of the question. The inland
commerce of Byzantium, like most medieval commerce was confined
generally to such commodities, of not excessive weight, as could
be packed into a small space, and would represent great values,
both intrinsically and on account of their importation from a
distance -- such as gems, jewelry, rich textiles and furs,
aromatic spices, and drugs. But food stuffs, such as cereals,
fresh vegetables, wine oil, dried meat, as well as dried fish
and fruits, could be conveyed any distance only by water.
Indeed, a grave problem presented itself in the provisioning of
the capital, the population of which approached probably, that
of a great modern city. It is now known that Alexandria at first
supplied Constantinople with grain, under State supervision.
After the loss of Egypt, Thrace and the lands of Pontus were
drawn upon for supplies. Of the establishment of an economic
centre however for all parts of the empire, of a centralized
system of trade routes radiating from Constantinople, there was
no conception. Moreover, Byzantine commerce strange to say,
shows a marked tendency to develop in a sense opposite to this
ideal. At first there was great commercial activity; the
Byzantines offered to India Persia, and Central and Eastern Asia
a channel of communication with the West. Various districts of
the empire strove to promote the export of industrial articles,
Syria and Egypt, in particular, upholding their ancient
positions as industrial sections of importance, their activity
expressing itself chiefly in weaving and dyeing and the
manufacture of metals and glass. The Slavonic invasion,
moreover, had not entirely extinguished the industrial talents
of the Greeks. In the tenth and eleventh centuries weaving,
embroidery, and the fabrication of carpets were of considerable
importance at Thebes and Patrae. In the capital itself, with
government aid in the form of a monopoly, a new industrial
enterprise was organized which confined itself chiefly to
shipbuilding and the manufacture of arms in the imperial
arsenals but also took up the preparation of silk fabrics. The
Byzantines themselves, in the earlier periods, carried these
wares to the West. There they enjoyed a commercial supremacy for
which their only rivals were the Arabs and which is most clearly
evidenced by the universal currency of the Byzantine gold
solidus. Gradually, however, a change came about: the empire
lost its maritime character and at last became almost
exclusively territorial, as appears in the decline of the
imperial navy. At the time of the Arabian conflicts it was the
navy that did the best work, at a later period, however, it was
counted inferior to the land forces. Similarly there was a
transformation in the mental attitude and the occupations of the
people. The Greek merchant allowed himself to be crowded out in
his own country by his Italian rival. The population even of an
island so well adapted for maritime pursuits as Crete seemed, in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, veritably afraid of the
water. What wrought this change is still an unsolved problem.
Here too, possibly, the provincial aristocracy showed its
effects, through the extension of its power over the inhabitants
of the country districts and its increasing influence on the
imperial Government.
The decline of the Byzantine Empire is strikingly exhibited in
the depreciation of currency during the reigns of the Comneni.
At that period the gold solidus lost its high currency value and
its commercial pre-eminence It is noteworthy that at the same
time we perceive the beginnings of large finance
(Geldwirtschaft). For at an earlier period the Byzantine Empire,
like the states of Western Europe, appears to have followed the
system of barter, or exchange of commodities in kind.
Nevertheless, as ground-rents were already paid in money during
the Comneni period, some uncertainty remains as to whether the
beginnings of finance and of capital as a distinct power in the
civilized world, should be sought in Byzantium or rather in the
highly developed fiscal system of the Roman Curia and the
mercantile activity of Italian seaports.
It will be seen from all this that the development of the
Byzantine Empire was by no means uniform in point either of time
or of place. Why is it then that the word Byzantine conveys a
definite and self consistent idea? Was there not something which
through all those centuries remained characteristic of
Byzantines in contrast with the neighbouring peoples? To this it
must be replied that such was certainly the ease, and that the
difference lay, first of all, in the more advanced civilization
of Byzantium. Many small but significant details are recorded --
as early as the sixth century Constantinople had a system of
street-lighting; sports, equestrian games or polo-playing, and
above all races in the circus attained a high national and
political importance; Byzantine princesses married to Venetians
introduced the use of table forks in the West. More striking are
the facts that as early as the eighth and ninth centuries, the
Byzantines, in their wars with the Arabs, used gunpowder -- the
so-called Greek fire -- and that a German emperor like Otto III
preferred to be a Roman of Byzantium rather than a German. This
Byzantine civilization, it is true suffered from a serious and
incurable disease, a worm gnawing at its core -- the utter
absence of originality. But here again, we should beware of
unwarranted generalization. A change in this respect is to be
noted from age to age, in the first centuries, before the
complete severing of the political and ecclesiastical ties
uniting them with the Eastern nations the Greek mind still
retained its gift of receptivity, and ancient Greek art
traditions, in combination with Persian, Syrian, and other
Oriental motives, produced the original plan of the true
Byzantine church -- a type which left its impression on
architecture, sculpture painting, and the minor arts. And yet so
complete was the isolation of the empire, separated from other
nations by the character of its government, the strictness of
its court etiquette, the refinement of its material
civilization, and, not least, by the peculiar development of the
national Church, that a kind of numbness crept over both the
language and the intellectual life of the people. The nations of
the West were indeed barbarians in comparison with the cultured
Byzantines, but the West had something for the lack of which no
learning, no technical skill could compensate -- the creative
force of an imagination in harmony with the laws of nature.
As to the share which Byzantine ecclesiastical development had
in this isolation, it must be conceded that the constitution of
the Eastern Church was rather imperial than universal. Its
administration was seriously influenced by the polities of the
empire the boundaries of the empire bounded the Church's
aspirations and activities. In the West, the obliteration of
those boundaries by the Germanic peoples and the outburst of
vigorous missionary activity on all sides furthered very notably
the idea of a universal Church, embracing all nations, and
unfettered by political or territorial limits. In the East the
development was quite different. Here, indeed, missionary work
met with considerable success. From the Syrian and Egyptian
Church sprang the Ethiopian, the Indian, the Mesopotamian, and
the Armenian Churches. Constantinople sent apostles to the
Slavonic and Finnic-Ugrian races. Still, these Oriental Churches
show, from the very beginning, a peculiar national structure.
Whether this was a legacy from the ancient Eastern religions, or
whether it was the reaction against Greek civilization which had
been imposed upon the people of the Orient from the time of
Alexander the Great, the adoption of Christianity went hand in
hand with nationalism. Opposed to this nationalism in many
important respects was the Greek imperial Church. Precisely
because it was only an imperial Church, it had not yet grasped
the concept of a universal Church. As the imperial Church,
constituting a department of the state-administration, its
opposition to the national Churches among the Oriental peoples
was always very emphatic. Thus it is that the dogmatic disputes
of these Churches are above all, expressions of
politico-national struggles. In the course of these contests
Egypt, and Syria, and finally Armenia also were lost to the
Greek Church. The Byzantine imperial Church at last found itself
almost exclusively confined to the Greek nation and its
subjects. In the end it became, in its own turn, a national
Church, and definitively severed all bonds of rite and dogma
linking it with the West. The schism between the Eastern and
Western Churches thus reveals a fundamental opposition of
viewpoints: the mutually antagonistic ideas of the universal
Church and of independent national churches -- an antagonism
which both caused the schism and constitutes the insurmountable
impediment to reunion.
DYNASTIC HISTORY
1A. Roman Period: Dynasties of Theodocius and Leo I (A.D. 395-518)
A glance at the above genealogies shows that the law governing
the succession in the Roman Empire persisted in the Byzantine.
On one hand, a certain law of descent is observed: the fact of
belonging to the reigning house, whether by birth or marriage,
gives a strong claim to the throne. On the other hand, the
people is not entirely excluded as a political factor. The
popular co-operation in the government was not regulated by set
forms. The high civil and military officials took part in the
enthronement of a new monarch, often by means of a palace or
military revolution. Legally, the people participated in the
government only through the Church. From the time of Marcianus,
the Byzantine emperors were crowned by the Patriarchs of
Constantinople.
Of the emperors of this period, Arcadius (395-408) and
Theodosius II (408-50) received the throne by right of
inheritance. The old senator Marcanius (450-57) came to the
throne through his marriage with the sister of Theodosius II,
Pulcheria who for years previously had been an inmate of a
convent. The Thracian Leo I the Great (457-74), owed his power
to Aspar the Alan, Magister Militum per Orientem, who, as an
Arian, was debarred from the imperial dignity, and who therefore
installed the orthodox Leo. Leo, it is true, soon became
refractory, and in 471 Aspar was executed by imperial command.
On Leo's death the throne was transmitted through his daughter
Ariadne, who had been united in marriage to the leader of the
Isaurian bodyguard, and had a son by him, Leo II. The sudden
death of Leo, however, after he had raised his father to the
rank of coregent placed the reins of power in the hands of Zeno
(474-91), who was obliged to defend his authority against
repeated insurrections. All these movements were instigated by
his mother-in-law, Verina, who first proclaimed her brother
Basiliscus emperor, and later Leontius, the leader of the
Thraecian army. Victory, however, rested with Zeno, at whose
death Ariadne once more decided the succession by bestowing her
hand on Anastasius Silentiarius (491-518) who had risen through
the grades of the civil service.
This brief résumé shows the important part played by women in
the imperial history of Byzantium. Nor was female influence
restricted to the imperial family. The development of Roman law
exhibits a growing realization of woman's importance in the
family and society. Theodora, whose greatness is not eclipsed by
that of her celebrated consort, Justinian, is a typical example
of the solicitude of a woman of high station for the interests
of the lowliest and the most unworthy of her sisters -- from
whose ranks perhaps she herself had risen. Byzantine
civilization produced a succession of typical women of middle
class who are a proof, first, of the high esteem in which women
were held in social life and, secondly, of the sacredness of
family life, which even now distinguishes the Greek people. To
this same tendency is probably to be ascribed the suppression by
Anastasius of the bloody exhibitions of the circus called
venationes. We must not forget, however, that under the
successor of Anastasius, Justin, the so-called circus factions
kept bears for spectacles in the circus, and the Empress
Theodora was the daughter of a bear-baiter. Still the fact
remains that cultured circles at that time began to deplore this
gruesome amusement, and that the venationes, and with them the
political significance of the circus, disappeared in the course
of Byzantine history.
One may be amazed at the assertion that the Byzantine was
humane, and refined in feeling, even to the point of
sensitiveness. Too many bloody crimes stain the pages of
Byzantine history -- not as extraordinary occurrences but as
regularly established institutions. Blinding, mutilation, and
death by torture had their place in the Byzantine penal system.
In the Middle Ages such horrors were not, it is true, unknown in
Western Europe, and yet the fierce crusaders thought the
Byzantines exquisitely cruel. In reading the history of this
people, one has to accustom oneself to a Janus-like national
character -- genuine Christian self-sacrifice, unworldliness,
and spirituality, side by side with avarice, cunning, and the
refinement of cruelty. It is, indeed, easy to detect this
idiosyncrasy in both the ancient and the modern Greeks. Greek
cruelty, however, may have been aggravated by the circumstances
that savage races not only remained as foes on the frontier, but
often became incorporated in the body politic, only veiling
their barbaric origin under a thin cloak of Hellenism. The whole
of Byzantine history is the record of struggles between a
civilized state and wild, or half-civilized, neighbouring
tribes. Again and again was the Byzantine Empire de facto
reduced to the limits of the capital city, which Anastasius had
transformed into an unrivaled fortress; and often, too, was the
victory over its foes gained by troops before whose ferocity its
own citizens trembled.
Twice in the period just considered, Byzantium was on the point
of falling into the hands of the Goths:
+ first, when, under the Emperor Arcadius, shortly after Alaric
the Visigoth had pillaged Greece, the German Gainas, being in
control of Constantinople simultaneously stirred up the East
Goths and the Gruthungi, who had settled in Phrygia,
+ a second time, when the East Goths, before their withdrawal to
Italy, threatened Constantinople.
These deliverances may not have been entirely fortunate. There
are differences in natural endowments among races; the history
of the Goths in Spain, Southern France and Italy shows that they
should not be classed with the savage Huns and Isaurians, and a
strong admixture of Germanic blood would perhaps have so
benefited the Greek nation as to have averted its moral and
political paralysis. But this was not to be expected of the
Hunnic and Isaurian races, the latter including, probably,
tribes of Kurds in the Taurus ranges in the southeast of Asia
Minor. It can only be considered fortunate that success so long
crowned the efforts to ward off the Huns, who, from 412 to 451,
when their power was broken at Châlons, had been a serious
menace to the imperial frontiers. More dangerous still were the
Isaurians, inhabitants of imperial territory, and the principal
source from which the guards of the capital were recruited. The
Emperor Zeno was an Isaurian, as was likewise his adversary,
Illus, Magister Officiorum who, in league with Verina mother of
the empress, plotted his downfall; and while these intrigues
were in progress the citizens of Constantinople were already
taking sides against the Isaurian bodyguard, having recourse
even to a general massacre to free themselves from their hated
oppressors. But it was the Emperor Anastasius who first
succeeded in removing these praetorians from the capital, and in
subjugating the inhabitants of the Isaurian mountains (493)
after a six years' war.
The same period is marked by the beginning of the Slavic and
Bulgar migrations. The fact has already been mentioned that
these races gradually possessed themselves of the whole Balkan
Peninsula the Slavs meanwhile absorbing the Finnic-Ugrian
Bulgars. The admixture of Greek blood, which was denied the
Germanic races, was reserved for the Slavs. To how great a
degree this mingling of races took place, will never be exactly
ascertained. On the other hand, the extent of Slavic influence
on the interior developments of the Byzantine Empire, especially
on that of the landed interests, is one of the great unsolved
questions of Byzantine history. In all these struggles, the
Byzantine polity shows itself the genuine heir of the ancient
Roman Empire. The same is true of the contest over the eastern
boundary, the centuries of strife with the Persians. In this
contest the Byzantine Greeks now found allies. The Persians had
never given up their native fire-worship, Mazdeism. Whenever a
border nation was converted to Christianity, it joined the
Byzantine alliance. The Persians, realizing this, sought to
neutralize the Greek influence by favouring the various sects in
turn. To this motive is to be attributed the favour they showed
to the Nestorians who at last became the recognized
representatives of Christianity in the Persian Empire. To meet
this policy of their adversaries, the Greeks for a long time
favoured the Syrian Monophysites, bitter enemies of the
Nestorians. Upon this motive, the Emperor Zeno closed the
Nestorian school at Edessa, in 489 and it was a part of the same
policy that induced the successors of Constantine the Great to
support the leaders of the Christian clerical party, the
Mamikonians, in opposition to the Mazdeistic nobility.
Theodosius II resumed this policy after his grandfather,
Theodosius the Great, had, by a treaty with Persia (387),
sacrificed the greater part of Armenia. Only Karin in the valley
of the Western Euphrates, thence forth called Theodosiopolis,
then remained a Roman possession. Theodosius II initiated a
different policy. He encouraged, as far as lay in his power, the
diffusion of Christianity in Armenia, invited Mesrob and Sahak,
the founders of Armenian Christian literature into Roman
territory, and gave them pecuniary assistance for the
prosecution of the work they had undertaken, of translating Holy
Scripture into Armenian. Anastasius followed the same shrewd
policy. On the one hand, he carried on a relentless war with the
Persians (502-06) and, on the other hand, lost no opportunity of
encouraging the Monophysite sect which was then predominant in
Egypt, Syria and Armenia. It is true that he met with great
difficulties from the irreconcilable factions, as had those of
his predecessors who had followed the policy of religious
indifference in dealing with the sects. The Eastern Churches in
these centuries were torn by theological controversies so fierce
as to have been with good reason compared with the sixteenth
century disputes of Western Christendom. All the warring
elements of the period -- national, local, economic, social,
even personal -- group themselves around the prevalent
theological questions, so that it is practically impossible to
say, in any given case, whether the dominant motives of the
parties to the quarrel were spiritual or temporal. In all this
hurlyburly of beliefs and parties three historical points have
to be kept clearly before the mind, in order to understand the
further development of the empire:
+ first, the decline of Alexandrian power,
+ secondly, the determination of the mutual relations of Rome
and Constantinople;
+ thirdly, the triumph of the civil over the ecclesiastical
authority.
Theodosius I was called the Great because he was the first
emperor to act against heathenism, and also because he
contributed to the victory of the followers of Athanasius over
the Arians. This victory redounded to the advantage of the
Patriarch of Alexandria. Strange as it seems at the present day,
everything pointed to the supremacy of the orthodox Patriarch of
Egypt, whose proud title (Papa et patriarcha Alexandriae, etc.)
is now the only reminder that its bearer was once in a fair way
to become the spiritual rival of Constantinople. Such, however,
was the case, and the common object of preventing this formed a
bond between Rome and Constantinople. It was some time, it is
true, before the two powers recognized this community of
interests. St. John Chrysostom, as Patriarch of Constantinople
had already felt the superior power of his Alexandrian
colleague. At the Synod of the Oak held on the Asiatic shore
opposite the capital, Chrysostom was deposed -- through the
collusion of the palace with the intrigues of Theophilus,
Patriarch of Alexandria although the people soon compelled his
recall to the patriarchal see, and it was only as the result of
fresh complications that he was permanently removed (404).
Nestorius, one of his successors, fared even worse. At that time
Alexandria was ruled by Cyril, nephew of Theophilus, and the
equal of his uncle and predecessor both in intellectual and in
political talents. Nestorius had declared himself against the
new and, as he asserted, idolatrous expression "Mother of God"
(Theotokos), thereby opposing the sentiments and wishes of the
humbler people. Cyril determined to use this opportunity to
promote the further exaltation of Alexandria at the expense of
Constantinople. At the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus
(431), Cyril received the hearty support of Pope Celestine's
representatives. Moreover, the Syrians, who were opponents of
Alexandria, did not champion Nestorius energetically. The
Patriarch of Constantinople proved the weaker and ended his life
in exile. It now seemed as though Alexandria had gained her
object. At the Second Council of Ephesus (the "Robber Council"
of 449) Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, had already been
hailed by a bishop of Asia Minor as "Ecumenical Archbishop",
when the energetic policy of Pope Leo I, the Great, and the
death of the Emperor Theodosius II brought about a change in the
trend of affairs. Marcian, the new emperor, came to an
understanding with Leo; a reconciliation had already been
effected with Rome through the drawing up of a confession of
faith, which was presented to the Synod of Chalcedon, the
so-called Fourth Ecumenical Council (451). Viewed from the
standpoint of Old Rome the result was most successful Dioscorus
of Alexandria was deposed and exiled, and the danger of an
all-powerful Alexandrian patriarch was averted. The Patriarch of
New Rome -- Constantinople -- could also be satisfied. The
solution of the question was less advantageous to the Byzantine
Empire. When the Greeks entered into communion with the Western
Church, the reaction of the Egyptians, Syrians, and other
Oriental peoples was all the more pronounced.
"Anti-Chalcedonians" was the term appropriated by everyone in
Asia who took sides against the Greek imperial Church, and the
outcome of the whole affair demonstrated once more the
impossibility of a compromise between the ideal of a universal,
and that of a national Church.
The second point, the rivalry between Constantinople and Rome,
can be discussed more briefly. Naturally, Rome had the advantage
in every respect. But for the division of the empire the whole
question would never have arisen. But Theodosius I, as early as
the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), had the
decision made that New Rome should take precedence immediately
after old Rome. This was the first expression of the theory that
Constantinople should be supreme among the Churches of the East.
The first to attempt to translate this thought into action was
John. As he undertook the campaign against Alexandria, so he was
also able to bring the still independent Church of Asia Minor
under the authority of Constantinople. On a missionary journey
he made the See of Ephesus, founded by St. John the Apostle, a
suffragan of his patriarchate. We can now understand why the war
against the Alexandrians was prosecuted with such bitterness.
The defeat of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon established
the supremacy of Constantinople. To be sure, this supremacy was
only theoretical, as it is a matter of history that from this
time forward the Oriental Churches assumed a hostile attitude
towards the Byzantine imperial Church. As for Rome, protests had
already been made at Chalcedon against the twenty-first canon of
the Eighth General Council which set forth the spiritual
precedence of Constantinople. This protest was maintained until
the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders put an end to the
pretensions of the Greek Church. Pope Innocent III (1215)
confirmed the grant to the Patriarch of Constantinople of the
place of honour after Rome.
We now come to the third point: the contest between
ecclesiastical and civil authority. In this particular, also,
the defeat of Alexandria was signal. Since the decrees of the
Council of Chalcedon it had been decided that in the East (it
was otherwise in the West) the old Roman custom, by which the
emperor had the final decision in ecclesiastical matters, should
continue. That was the end of the matter at Byzantium, and we
need not be surprised to find that before long dogmatic disputes
were decided by arbitrary imperial decrees, that laymen princes,
and men who had held high state offices were promoted to
ecclesiastical offices, and that spiritual affairs were treated
as a department of the Government. But it must not be supposed
that the Byzantine Church was therefore silenced. The popular
will found a means of asserting itself most emphatically,
concurrently with the official administration of ecclesiastical
affairs. The monks in particular showed the greatest
fearlessness in opposing their ecclesiastical superiors as well
as the civil authority.
1B. Dynasties of Justinian and Tiberius (518-610)
This period saw the reigns of two renowned and influential
Byzantine empresses. As the world once held its breath at the
quarrel between Eudoxia, the wanton wife of the Emperor
Arcadius, and the great patriarch, John Chrysostom, and at the
rivalry of the sisters-in-law, Pulcheria and Athenais-Eudocia,
the latter the daughter of an Athenian philosopher, so Theodora,
the dancer of the Byzantine circus, and her niece Sophia
succeeded in obtaining extraordinary influence by reason of
their genius, wit, and political cleverness. Theodora died of
cancer (548), seventeen years before her husband. No serious
discord ever marred this singular union, from which, however,
there was no issue. The death of this remarkable woman proved an
irreparable loss to her consort, who grieved profoundly for her
during the remainder of his life. Her niece, Sophia, who
approached her in ambition and political cunning, though not in
intellect, had a less fortunate ending. Her life was darkened by
a bitter disappointment. With the help of Tiberius commander of
the palace guard, a Thracian famed for his personal attractions,
she placed on the throne her husband, Justin II (565-78), who
suffered from temporary attacks of insanity. Soon Sophia and
Tiberius became the real rulers of the empire. In 574 the
empress succeeded in inducing her husband to adopt Tiberius as
Caesar and coregent. The death of Justin (578), however, did not
bring about the hoped-for consummation of her relations with
Tiberius. Tiberius II (578-82) had a wife in his native village,
and now for the first time presented her in the capital. After
his accession to the throne, he revered the Empress Sophia as a
mother, and even when the disappointed woman began to place
obstacles in his path, he was forbearing, and treated her with
respect while keeping her a prisoner.
The dynasty of Justin originated in Illyria. At the death of the
Emperor Anastasius, Justin I (518-27), like his successor
Tiberius, commander of the palace guard, by shrewdly availing
himself of his opportunities succeeded in seizing the reins
of-power. Even during the reign of Justin, Justinian, his
nephew, and heir-presumptive to the throne, played an important
role in affairs. He was by nature peculiar and slow. Unlike his
uncle, he had received an excellent education. He might justly
be called a scholar; at the same time he was a man of boundless
activity. As absolute monarch, like Philip II of Spain, he
developed an almost incredible capacity for work. He endeavoured
to master all the departments of civil life, to gather in his
hands all the reins of government. The number of rescripts drawn
up by Justinian is enormous. They deal with all subjects, though
towards the end by preference with dogmatic questions, as the
emperor fancied that he could put an end to religious quarrels
by means of bureaucratic regulations. He certainly took his
vocation seriously. On sleepless nights he was frequently seen
pacing his apartments absorbed in thought. His whole concept of
life was serious to the point of being pedantic. We might
therefore wonder that such a man should choose as his consort a
woman of the demi monde. No doubt Procopius, "a chamberlain
removed from the atmosphere of the court, unheeded and venomous
in his sullen old age", is not veracious in all his statements
concerning the previous life of Theodora. It is certain,
however, that a daughter was born to her before she became
acquainted with the crown prince, and it is equally certain that
before she married the pedantic monarch, she had led a dissolute
life. However she filled her new role admirably. Her subsequent
faultless, her influence great, but not obtrusive. Her
extravagance and vindictiveness -- for she had enemies, among
them John the Cappadocian the great financial minister so
indispensable to Justinian -- may well have cost the emperor
many an uneasy hour, but there was never any lasting breach.
Theodora, after captivating the Crown-Prince Justinian by her
genius and witty conversation, proved herself worthy of her
position at the critical moment. It was in the year 532, five
years after Justinian's accession. Once more the people of
Constantinople, through its circus factions, sought to oppose
the despotic rule then beginning. It resulted in the frightful
uprising which had taken its name from the well-known watchword
of the circus parties: Nika "Conquer". In the palace everything
was given up for lost, and himself, the heroic chief of the
mercenaries, advised flight. At this crisis Theodora saved the
empire for her husband by her words: "The purple is a good
windingsheet". The Government was firm; the opposing party
weakened, the circus factions were shorn of their political
influence and the despotic government of Justinian remained
assured for the future.
It is well known what the reign of Justinian (527-65) meant for
the external and internal development of the empire. The
boundaries of the empire were extended, Africa was reconquered
for a century and a half, all Italy for some decades. The
Byzantine power was established, for a time, even in some cities
of the Spanish coast. Less successful were his Eastern wars.
Under Justin and the aged Kavadh, war with Persia had again
broken out. On the accession of the great Chosroes I, Nushirvan
(531-79), in spite of the peace of 532, which Justinian hoped
would secure for him liberty of action in the West, Chosroes
allowed him no respite. Syria suffered terribly from pillaging
incursions, Lazistan (the ancient Colchis) was taken by the
Persians and a road thereby opened to the Black Sea. Only after
the Greeks resumed the war more vigorously (549) did they
succeed in recapturing Lazistan, and in 562 peace was concluded.
Nevertheless the Persian War was transmitted as an unwelcome
legacy to the successors of Justinian. In 571 strife broke out
anew in Christian Armenia owing to the activity of the
Mazdeistic Persians. While the Romans gained many brilliant
victories their opponents also obtained a few important
successes. Suddenly affairs took an unexpected turn. Hormizdas,
the son and successor of Chosroes I (579-90), lost both life and
crown in an uprising. His son, Chosroes II, Parvez (590-628),
took refuge with the Romans. Mauritius, who was then emperor
(582-602) received the fugitive and by the campaign of 591
reestablished him on the throne of his fathers. Thus the
relations of the empire with the Persians seemed at last
peaceful. Soon, however Mauritius himself was deposed and
murdered on the occasion of a military sedition. The centurion
Phocas (602-10) seized the helm of the Byzantine state.
Chosroes, ostensibly to avenge his friend, the murdered emperor,
forthwith resumed the offensive. The administration of Phocas
proved thoroughly inefficient. The empire seemed to swerve out
of its old grooves, the energetic action of some patriots,
however, under the leadership of nobles high in the Government,
and the call of Heraclius, saved the situation, and after a
fearful conflict with the powers of the East, lasting over a
hundred years, Byzantium rose again to renewed splendour.
It is a noteworthy feet that Lombard and Syrian chroniclers call
the Emperor Mauritius the first "Greek" emperor. The
transformation of the Roman State, with Latin as the official
language, into a Greek State had become manifest. During the
reign of Mauritius the rest of Justinian's conquests in Italy
and Africa were placed under the civil administration of
military governors or exarchs. This is symptomatic. The
separation of civil and military power, which had been
inaugurated in the happier and more peaceful days at the end of
the third century, had outlived its usefulness. During the
period of the Arabian conflicts under the Heraclean dynasty, the
old Roman system of combining civil and military power was
established in a new form. The commander of a thema (regiment)
was charged with the supervision of the civil authorities in his
military district. The old diocesan and provincial divisions
disappeared, and military departments became administrative
districts.
It is manifest that Justinian's policy of restoration ended in a
miserable failure. The time for a Roman Empire in the old sense
of the term, with the old administrative system, was past. It is
unfortunate that the rivers of blood which brought destruction
upon two Germanic states, the robber Vandals and the noble East
Goths, and the enormous financial sacrifice of the eastern half
of the empire had no better outcome. If despite all this, the
name of Justinian is inscribed in brilliant letters in the
annals of the world's history, it is owing to other
achievements: his codification of the laws and his enterprise as
a builder. It was the fortune of this emperor to be contemporary
with the artistic movement which, rising in Persia, gained the
ascendancy in Syria and spread over Asia Minor and thence to
Constantinople and the West. It was the merit of Justinian that
he furnished the pecuniary means, often enormous for the
realization of these artistic aspirations. His fame will endure
so long as Saint Sophia at Constantinople endures, and so long
as hundreds of pilgrims annually visit the churches of Ravenna.
This is not the place to enumerate the architectural
achievements of Justinian, ecclesiastical and secular, bridges,
forts, and palaces. Nor shall we dwell upon his measures against
the last vestiges of heathenism, or his suppression of the
University of Athens (529). On the other hand, there is one
phase of his activity as a ruler to which reference must be made
here, and which was the necessary counterpart of his policy of
conquest in the West and issued in as great a failure. The
Emperors Zeno and Anastasius had sought remedies for the
difficulties raised by the Council of Chalcedon. It was Zeno who
commissioned Acacius the great Patriarch of Constantinople --
the first, perhaps, who took the title of Ecumenical Patriarch
-- to draft the formula of union known as the "Henoticon" (482).
This formula cleverly evaded the Chalcedon decisions, and made
it possible for the Monophysites to return to the imperial
Church. But the gain on one side proved a loss on the other.
Under existing conditions, it did not matter much that Rome
protested, and again and again demanded the erasure of the name
of Acacius from the diptychs. It was much more important that
the capital and Europe as well as the chief Greek cities, showed
hostility to the Henoticon. The Greeks, moreover, were attached
to their national Church, and they regarded the decrees of
Chalcedon as an expression of their national creed. The Emperor
Anastasius was a Monophysite by conviction and his religious
policy irritated the West. At last, when he installed in the
patriarchal See of Constantinople Timotheus, an uncompromising
Monophysite, and at the Synod of Tyre had the decrees of
Chalcedon condemned, and the Henoticon solemnly confirmed, a
tumult arose at the capital, and later in the Danubian
provinces, headed by Vitalian, a Moesian Anastasius died (518),
and, under Justin I, Vitalian, who had received from Anastasius
the appointment as magister militum per Thraciam, remained
all-powerful. He acted throughout as the enemy of the
Monophysites and the champion of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. He
urged the union with Rome, which must render the breach with the
Eastern Churches final. This union was consummated in 519; the
conditions were the removal of the name of Acacius from the
diptychs, and the banishment of over fifty bishops of Asia Minor
and Syria who were opposed to the Chalcedonian decrees. A year
later the government of Justin rid itself of the too powerful
Vitalian by having him assassinated. The union with Rome,
however, was not disturbed. When, in the year 525, Pope John I
appeared in Constantinople on a mission from the Ostrogoth King
Theodoric, he celebrated High Mass in Latin and took precedence
before the ecumenical patriarch. We know that at the time
Justinian was the actual ruler; it may be conjectured what
motive inspired him to allow this. His plan for the conquest of
the West made it desirable for him to win the papacy over to his
side, and consummate the ecclesiastical union with the Latins.
These views he held throughout his reign. Theodora, however,
thought otherwise. She became the protectress of the
Monophysites. Egypt owed to her its years of respite; under her
protection Syria ventured to reestablish its Anti-Chalcedonian
Church she encouraged the Monophysite missions in Arabia Nubia,
and Abyssinia. The empress did not even hesitate to receive the
heads of the Monophysite opposition party in her palace, and
when, in 536 Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople, was, at the
instance of Pope Agapetus, deposed for his Asiatic propensities,
she received the fugitive into the women's apartments, where he
was discovered at the death of the empress (548). He had spent
twelve years within the walls of the imperial palace under the
protection of the Augusta. There are reasons to suspect that
Justinian did not altogether disapprove of his consort's policy.
It was but a half-way attempt to win over the Monophysites.
Could they indeed, ever be won over?
The spectacle of this emperor wearing out his life in the vain
effort to restore the unity of the empire, in faith, law, and
custom is like the development of a tragedy; his endeavours only
tended to widen the breach between those nations which most
needed each other's support -- those of the Balkan Peninsula and
of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. With all his dogmatic
experiments the emperor did not succeed in reconciling the
parties or devising a feasible method of bringing the parts of
the empire to co-operate with one another. His successors had no
better success Even the conciliatory measures of John the
Faster, Patriarch of the capital (582-95), were of no avail. The
conquest of the East by the Arabs, in the seventh century
brought a cessation of this movement towards the differentiation
of the East into separate nations -- a cessation which, to be
sure, involved for most of the Syrian and Egyptian Christians
the loss of their faith.
2. Founding of the Real Byzantine State (610-717)
Salvation from the Arab peril came through the energetic dynasty
of Heraclius, which flourished for five generations. Three of
the rulers were characterized by extraordinary will power and
striking intellectual ability: Heraclius (610-41), Constans
(642-68), and Constantine, called Pogonatus, or the Bearded
(668-85). The year 685 marks the beginning of the dynastic
decline. Justinian II (685-95, and 705-11) had inherited the
excellent qualities of his ancestors but grotesquely distorted;
he had the instincts of a sultan, with a touch of Caesarian
madness. Whence it came about that in 695 he was deposed. His
nose was cut off -- whence the name Rhinotmetus -- and he was
banished to Cherson. There he formed an alliance with the Khan
of the Khazars, whose son-in-law he became, and fled in a
fishing boat over the Black Sea to the mouths of the Danube. The
Bulgarians had dwelt in this region since about 679. In 705,
aided by an army of Slavs and Bulgarians, Rhinotmetus returned
to Constantinople, and the Bulgarian prince received the name of
Caesar as a reward for the help he had rendered. For the next
six years the emperor's vengeance was wreaked on all who had
been his adversaries. At last, while hastening to Cherson, where
Philippicus Bardanes, an Armenian officer, had been proclaimed
emperor, Rhinotmetus was slain near Damatrys in Asia Minor.
The first dethronement of Justinian, in 695, had been
accomplished by an officer named Leontius who reigned from then
until 698, and it was in this period that the Arabs succeeded in
gaining possession of almost all Roman Africa, including
Carthage. The Byzantine fleet which had been sent to oppose this
invasion revolted, while off the coast of Crete, and raised the
admiral, Apsimarus, to the purple under the title of Tiberius
III (698-705). The reign of Tiberius was not unsuccessful but in
705 Justinian returned, and both Tiberius and Leontius (who had
meantime been living in a monastery) were beheaded. Philippicus
the Armenian, following upon the second reign of Rhinotmetus,
favoured the religious principles of his Armenian countrymen,
and the people of Byzantium raised to the throne in his stead
Anastasius II (713-15), an able civilian official who restored
the orthodox faith. But when he attempted to check the
insubordination of the army, which had made three emperors since
695, the troops of the Opsikion thema (from the territory of the
Troad as far as Nicaea) proclaimed as emperor the unwilling
Theodosius (715-17), an obscure official of one of the
provinces. At the same time the Caliph Suleiman was equipping a
vast armament to ravage the frontier provinces. Thus the empire
which the army, under the great military emperors, Heraclius
Constans, and Constantine, had saved from the threatened
invasion of the Arabs, seemed fated to be brought to destruction
by the selfsame army. But the army was better than the events of
the preceding twenty-two years might seem to indicate. Leo and
Artavasdus, commanders, respectively, of the two most important
themata, the Anatolic and the Armenian, combined forces.
Theodosius voluntarily abdicated and again the throne of
Constantine was occupied by a great Byzantine ruler, fitted by
nature for his position, Leo of Germanicia (now Marash) in
Northern Syria.
This brief review of the various rulers suffices to show that
the diseased mentality of Justinian II brought to an end the
prosperous period of the Heraclean dynasty. The attempt has been
made to prove that this prince inherited an unsound mind, and to
discover corresponding symptoms of insanity in his ancestors.
This much is certain: that a strength of will carried at times
to the point of foolhardiness and incorrigible obstinacy and a
propensity to the despotic exercise of power distinguish the
whole dynasty. Even Heraclius, by a personal inclination to
which he clung in defiance of reason and against the
remonstrances of his well-wishers, placed the peace of the State
and the perpetuation of his dynasty in serious peril. This was
his passion for his niece Martina, whom he married after the
death of his first wife in defiance of all the warnings of the
great Patriarch Sergius. Martina is the only woman of any
political importance during these warlike times. Her character
distinguished by a consuming ambition, and her influence may
have increased when, after the loss of Syria to the Arabs,
Heraclius, becoming afflicted with an internal disease, fell
into a state of lethargy. On the death of her husband (641) she
sought to obtain the supreme power for her own son Heracleonas
to the prejudice of her step-son Constantine. The army
recognized both princes as sovereign, a state of things which
contained the germ of further complications. Fortunately
Constantine who had long been ailing, died a few weeks after his
father, and the army, ignoring Martina and Heracleonas, placed
Constans, the son of Constantine, on the throne. Thus it was
that the almost uninterrupted succession of the three emperors,
Heraclius, Constans, and Constantine IV, Pogonatus came about.
As has been repeatedly observed, the activity of these rulers
was concentrated on the Herculean task of defending the empire
against the foreign foes that were bearing down on it from all
sides. Fortunately the Avars, who from the time of Justinian had
been bought off with an annual tribute, but who as lately as 623
and 626 had besieged Constantinople, were gradually hemmed in by
the onrushing Slavs and Bulgarians upon the Hungarian lowlands,
and thereby removed from immediate contact with the Byzantine
Empire. All the more persistent, however, were the attacks of
the Slavic races. During the time of Heraclius the Croats and
Serbs established themselves in their present homes. The Roman
cities of Dalmatia had difficulty in defending themselves.
Presently the Slavs took to the sea, and by 623 they had pushed
their way as far as Crete. Still their visits were only
occasional they made no permanent settlements on the islands,
and on the mainland the larger cities escaped subjection to
Slavic influence was attacked again and again most seriously in
675, but was saved each time by the heroism of her citizens. The
Slavs, fortunately, were still split into different tribes, so
that they could be held in check by timely expeditions, such as
that which Constans had made near Thessalonica. It was otherwise
with the Bulgarians. In 635 Heraclius concluded an alliance with
their prince, Kuvrat, so as to use them in opposing the Avars
and Slavs. However, there soon arose in the territory between
the Danube and the Balkan Peninsula, under the leadership of the
Bulgarians a state composed of Slavonic and Finnic-Ugrian
elements. Their organization differed widely from that of the
Serbs and Croats, who were held together by no political bond.
In 679 the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus suffered a serious
defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians; by 695 things had come to
such a pass that Justinian II reconquered Constantinople through
Bulgarian assistance. In later centuries the Bulgarian State
became Byzantium's most dangerous European foe.
But at this period its most formidable enemies were its
neighbours, the Persians. It will be recalled how Anastasius and
Justinian I had fought with this nation, and how, in the peace
of 562, Lazistan at least had been held as a guarantee of
Byzantine supremacy over the trade routes to Central Asia. The
twenty years' war (571-91) brought many vicissitudes. At last
the Emperor Mauritius obtained possession of Dara and
Martyropolis, in Syria, as well as the greater part of Armenia.
Nisibis, however, remained Persian. So far, an important
advantage had been gained for Byzantium. But the assassination
of Mauritius effected a marked change. Chosroes II, Parvez,
commenced war against the usurper Phocas which he continued
against his successor, Heraclius. In 606 Dara fell, and in 608
the Persians appeared for the first time before Chalcedon. In
611 they captured Antioch and the eastern part of Asia Minor in
613 Damascus, and in 614 Jerusalem. The True Cross fell into
their hands and was carried off to Persia. In 615 a Persian army
stood before Chalcedon for the second time. In 619 they
conquered Ancyra in Asia Minor, and even Egypt. Heraclius saved
himself splendidly from this terrible situation. In three daring
campaigns (622-28) he freed Armenia from her oppressors By the
peace of 628 Armenia and Syria were recovered. On 14 September,
629, the True Cross, restored by the Persians, was again set up
in Jerusalem, and in 629 Egypt likewise was wrested from the
Persians. Then came the fearful reverses consequent on the Arab
rising; in 635 Damascus fell; in 637 Jerusalem was surrendered
by the Patriarch Sophronius, after a siege of two years. At
first (634) Heraclius himself came to Antioch to organize the
campaign, then followed the lethargy due to his sickness, and he
supinely allowed the Arabs to advance. At his death (641) Egypt
was virtually lost; on 29 September, 643, Amru entered
Alexandria, in 647 the province of Africa, and in 697 its
capital, Carthage, fell into the hands of the Arabs. Meanwhile
the Arabs had built a navy, and soon the war raged on all sides.
They had taken Cyprus in 648; in 655 they first thought of
attacking Constantinople. Fortunately their fleet was vanquished
off the Lycian coast. Later they established themselves in
Cyzicus, and from 673 to 677 menaced the capital. At the same
time they conquered Armenia (654) and ravaged Asia Minor. In 668
they pushed on to Chalcedon. During all these losses, the Greeks
could show only one step gained -- or rather one successful to
safeguard their power. Many Christian families emigrated from
Asia Minor and Syria to Sicily Lower Italy, and Rome, thus
strengthening the Byzantine power in the West, and the Emperor
Constans could use Sicily as a base for the reconquest of Africa
(662). He is thought to have intended making Rome once more the
capital of the empire. In 668, however, he was murdered in
Syracuse during a military uprising, and with him these vast
plans came to an end. His son, Constantine IV was very young at
the time of his accession; still he was not only able to assert
his authority in the face of an unruly army, but soon like his
father and great grandfather, proved himself a brave warrior and
displayed consummate generalship against the Arabs, the Slavs,
and the Bulgarians.
The splendid prowess of Byzantium is still brilliantly apparent,
in spite of these losses. This was due, in the first place, to
its excellent military equipment. The period of the Arab peril,
a peril which at a later date in the West, during the time of
Charles Martel, saw the introduction of cavalry wearing
defensive armour in place of the Roman and Germanic infantry,
marked a like innovation in the East, at an earlier period. The
Byzantine cuirassiers, or cataphracti probably originated at
this time. Moreover, the State was now thoroughly organized on
military lines. The system of themata, after the model of the
exarchate of Ravenna and Africa, found acceptance in Asia Minor,
and gradually spread through the whole empire. The thema of the
Cibyrrhaeots, in southern Asia Minor, belonged to the districts
which during the Roman Republic had produced the most notorious
pirates. In the Saracen wars the fleet played a very important
part; the Byzantine victory, therefore, showed that the
Byzantine fleet was not only equal to that of the Arabs in point
of men and solidity of construction but had an important
technical advantage. During the great leaguer of Constantinople,
from April to September, 673, Callinicus a Syrian, is said to
have taught the Greeks the use of gunpowder, or "Greek fire".
It remains to discuss the ecclesiastical disputes of the seventh
century. At first everything seemed to point towards a
compromise. The Persian invasions, which had swept over the
Christian peoples of the Orient since 606, probably strengthened
a feeling of kinship among Christian nations. Even during his
Armenian campaign, Heraclius began to prepare the way for the
union with the Oriental Churches. He was supported in his
efforts by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope
Honorius I. As a basis of dogmatic unity, Heraclius proclaimed
as a formula of faith the "union of the two Natures of the
God-Man through the Divine-human energy". Everything seemed
propitious, the only opponent of the movement being Sophronius,
Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was afterwards forced to surrender
the city to the Arabs. His antagonism lent the opposition
movement stability and permanence in his effort to conciliate
the Monophysites, in his "Ecthesis" of 638 emphasized still more
emphatically the union of the two natures by one will
(Monothelitism). Immediately the West -- and particularly
Africa, the scene of St. Maximus's labours -- set up the
standard of opposition. It was of no avail that Emperor Constans
II in his "Typus" (648) forbade all contention over the number
of wills and energies, and that he caused Pope Martin I, as well
as St. Maximus, to be apprehended and banished to Cherson. The
West was temporarily defeated, though destined finally to
conquer. After Syria, Egypt, and Africa had been lost to the
Arabs, there was no further object in trying to establish
Monothelitism. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-81)
orthodoxy was reestablished by the Emperor Constantine IV. That
this move was in harmony with the desire of the Greek people,
was evident during the reign of Philippicus, the Armenian. His
attempt to restore Monothelitism in the Rome of the East
resulted in his dethronement. Once more the Greeks had cut
themselves loose from the Armenians, whether to the advantage of
the empire is a question which receives various answers.
3. Iconoclasm (717-867)
During this period two dynasties occupied the throne, each
lasting for several generations. Both were of Eastern origin,
the one from Northern Syria, the other from Phrygia. Leo V
(813-20) also was of Oriental extraction. On the other hand,
Nicephorus I (802-11) and his son-in-law Michael I, Rhangabe
(811-13), were Greeks. In other words, the government of the
empire became orientalized. This racial antagonism must be borne
in mind in order to grasp the bitterness of the religious
contentions of the period. The same period shows a second
dynastic anomaly: for the first and last time there is an
empress on the throne not as regent, but with the full title
Basileus. This is Irene, perhaps the most disagreeable character
of all the great Byzantine women. Like Athenais, she was an
Athenian, but in the charm of the Muses she was totally lacking.
Two passions possessed her soul: ambition and religious
fanaticism, but her piety was of a strange kind. She persisted
in her devotion to her party with the unswerving conviction that
her opinion was right, and she did not hesitate to commit the
most atrocious crimes of which a woman could be guilty in order
to ruin her son morally and physically. Not without reason has
Irene been compared to Catherine de' Medici. On the death of her
husband, Leo IV (775-80), in her desire for power she strove to
keep her son as a minor as long as possible, and finally to set
him aside altogether. Of her own authority she canceled the
betrothal of Constantine VI (780-97) to Rotrud, the daughter of
Charlemagne, and forced him to marry Maria, an Armenian, a woman
wholly distasteful to him. When the seventeen-year-old emperor
showed a disposition to escape her power, she had him scourged
with rods. She finally lent her sanction to his marriage with a
woman of the court, Theodota, a union regarded by the Church as
bigamous. In this way she thought to make his accession to power
impossible. The worst, however, was still to come. Irene took
advantage of an uprising to rid herself of her son permanently.
Constantine VI, blinded at the command of his mother, ended his
life in an obscure apartment of the imperial palace, where
Theodota bore him a son. His mother now ruled alone (797-802)
until the elevation of the grand treasurer, Nicephorus put an
end to her power, and she spent her remaining years on the
island of Lesbos in sickness and poverty.
Irene is honoured as a saint in the Greek Church because at the
Seventh General Synod of Nicaea (787), she obtained important
concessions in the matter of the veneration of images. Though
the adoration of images, as well as other abusive practices of
veneration, which had already been condemned as idolatrous, were
again wholly forbidden, prostrate veneration, incense, and
candles were permitted. Theodora achieved a similar prominence.
After the fall of Irene, the Iconoclasts again gained the upper
hand, and the brief reign of Michael I, who supplanted his
brother-in-law Stauracius (811), was powerless to change this.
The Emperor Theophilus (829-42) in the vigour of his religious
persecution approached the energetic Constantine V (741-75),
known to the opposite party, and later to historians, by the
insulting epithet of Copronymus. When Theodora became regent,
through the early death of her husband, she introduced milder
measures. A compromise was effected between the parties. At the
synod of 843 permission was given for the veneration of images,
and at the same time the anathema was removed from the name of
the Emperor Theophilus. In order to remove it, Theodora, it is
said, was guilty of a pious fraud and the false declaration that
the emperor, before his death, had been converted to the
veneration of images. Of more importance, however, is the feet
that the members of the ecclesiastical party by removing the
anathema against the emperor yielded to state authority, and
while victorious in the dogmatic controversy acknowledged that
they were vanquished in the ecclesiastico-political.
The questions of this time seem to have concerned matters of
far-reaching importance, problems which, despite their strange
dress, appear fundamentally quite modern and familiar. The
dogmatical side of these contests was not connected with the old
controversy about the two natures of Christ, but with the
heretical views of different Oriental sects, influenced by
Judaism and Mohammedanism. The eastern frontier of the empire in
Asia Minor was the home of these multifarious sects, which
guaranteed the separate existence of the tribes which belonged
to them and regarded themselves as the "faithful" in opposition
to the state Church. Leo III, the Syrian (717-41), who saved
Byzantium from the Arabian peril, repulsed the last serious
attack of the Arabs on the capital (September, 717, to August,
718), by his reforms made the empire superior to its foes, and
brought the views of these sectaries into the policy of the
Byzantine empire. In the celebrated edict of 726 he condemned
the veneration of images, a decree which he considered part of
his reforming activity. Probably he hoped by this means to bring
the people of the empire closer to Islam, to lessen the
differences between the two religions. This may be regarded as
another attempt to orientalize the empire, such as the dynasty
of Heraclius and others before had previously made. The Greek
nation answered by promptly repudiating the attempt, all the
more emphatically because here again dogmatic and national
antagonisms were connected with the struggle between Church and
State.
It is unjust to attribute unworthy motives to the party who
called themselves image-worshipers and rallied around such men
as Plato, abbot of the monastery of Saccudion, and his nephew
Theodore, afterwards Abbot of Studium. The fact is that the
whole movement was based on a deeply religious spirit which led
to detachment from the world and indeed to complete
insensibility towards all earthly ties, even the most
legitimate. The ideal of these men is not the Christian ideal of
today; their rigorous stand might not always meet with our
approval. But it was a party that exerted a powerful influence
on the people, which could only be intensified by persecution.
In this movement it seems possible to discern the forerunner of
the great reform movement of the West during the tenth and
eleventh centuries -- a movement which tended to intensify
religious life and which stood for the liberation of the Church
from the control of the State.
The Iconoclasts, on the other hand, represented a principle
which we know to have been forced into the Greek-Byzantine world
as something foreign. It encountered sentiments and views,
however, with which it could combine. In spite of the
Christianization of Byzantium, there remained there a residue of
ancient pagan Roman ideas. The Byzantines of this school often
appear so modern to us precisely because they were permeated
with rationalistic anti-ecclesiastical sentiments. Such men were
found most frequently among the cultured classes, the high
dignitaries of Church and State. This is why Iconoclasm which
was sympathetic to this rationalistic tendency, could develop
into a general movement and why it reminds us in so many ways of
the rationalistic movement of the eighteenth century; it also
explains why the Iconoclastic emperors always found supporters
in the higher ranks of the clergy. Thus it was that Leo III
conducted his attack against the protesting popes through the
Patriarch Anastasius. When Pope Gregory II refused to recognize
the edict of 726, the emperor withdrew from his jurisdiction
Sicily, Lower Italy, and Illyria, and placed them under the
Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantine Copronymus had similar
support. Upheld by prelates in favour of a national Church, he
once more, through the council of 754, prohibited the veneration
of images. We know of the numerous martyrdoms caused by the
execution of the decree, and how the Empress Irene, herself a
friend of the "image-worshipers", finally yielded. There soon
followed the reaction of the Icon under Leo V the Armenian, and
the Phrygian dynasty, and at last the legal restoration of
image-worship by Theodora. We have already seen that this
victory of the orthodox party, viewed from an
ecclesiastico-political standpoint, was not complete. The reason
of this partial defeat lay not in the existence of a party among
the higher clergy favouring a national Church, but in the fact
that the orthodox party gradually lost their hold on the people.
We know how the antagonism of the Greeks to the Latins had
gradually grown more intense. It was regarded as unpatriotic
when Theodore of Studium and his friends so openly declared for
Rome. The strength of this National Church movement came into
most perfect evidence with the advent of the great Photius. His
rise and the fall of the Patriarch Ignatius were connected with
a shabby court intrigue, the Patriarch Ignatius having ventured
to oppose the all-powerful Bardas during the reign of Michael
III (842-67). At first the proceedings of Photius differed in no
respect from those of a common office-seeker. But by opposing
the claims of Old Rome to Bulgarian obedience he suddenly gained
immense popularity, and thus paved the way for the ultimate
separation of the Greek and Latin Churches.
It was Boris (852-88), the Bulgarian Tsar, who stirred up the
entire question. With the help of St. Clement, a disciple of
Methodius, the Apostle of the Slavs, he had introduced
Christianity among his people, on the occasion of his own
baptism, the Emperor Michael III was sponsor. Soon afterwards
Boris tried to withdraw from the influence of East Rome, and
enter into closer relations with Old Rome. At the same time the
Holy See renewed its claims to the Illyrian obedience. Photius's
answer was the egkuklios epistole (circular letter) of 867, by
which he sought to establish the separation from Old Rome both
in ritual and in dogma. In spite of the many vacillations of
Byzantine polities between the partisans of Ignatius and those
of Photius during the next decades, this was the first decisive
step towards the schism of 1054.
During this whole period the Bulgarians had given great trouble
to the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor Nicephorus I fell in battle
against them, and his successors warded them off only with the
greatest difficulty. Equally violent were the wars against the
Saracens and the Slavs. There was no second investment of the
capital by the Syrian Arabs, it is true, though on the other
hand, in 860 the city was hard pressed by the Varangian Ros, but
all the more danger was to be apprehended from the Arabs who had
been expelled from Spain and had settled in Egypt in 815. In 826
they conquered Crete, and about the same time the Arabs of
Northern Africa began to settle in Sicily, a migratory movement
which finally resulted in the complete loss of the island to the
Byzantines. As once they had come from Syria and Asia Minor so
now many Greek families migrated to Lower Italy and the
Peloponnesus. The Christianization and hellenization of the
Slavs was now begun, and soon produced rich fruits. It is
difficult, as we have already said, to determine how great an
admixture of Slavic blood flows in the veins of the Greeks of
today, on the other hand, it is certain that the Slavs have left
many traces of their laws and customs. The agrarian law dating,
possibly, from the time of the Emperor Leo III, shows the
strength of the Slavic influence on the development of the
Byzantine agrarian system.
It remains to touch on the relations between the Byzantine
Empire and the West during this period. In the West, the
Frankish nation had gradually taken the lead of all other
Germanic peoples. As we know, the relations of Byzantium with
these nations were always somewhat unstable. One thing only had
remained unchanged: the Byzantine rulers, as legitimate
successors of the Roman emperors, had always maintained their
claim to sovereignty over the Germanic peoples. For the most
part this had been unconditionally admitted, as is evident from
the coinage. At the time of the Empress Irene, however, a great
change set in. The restoration of the Roman Empire of the West
by Charlemagne (800) was the signal for a complete break with
all previous traditions. The West stood now on the same footing
as the East. As we know, this important step had been taken in
full accord with the papacy. Historically, it is thus a part of
the controversies which began with the withdrawal of Illyrian
obedience, and culminated in the egkuklios epistole of Photius.
The idea of a national imperial Church seemed to prevail in both
East and West; to be sure this was only seemingly so, for the
popes did not give up their universal supremacy, but soon began
again to utilize politically their advantageous location midway
between East and West.
4. Period of Political Balance (867-1057)
The period of the highest development of Byzantine power was not
dynastically the most fortunate. Seldom has there been such an
accumulation of moral filth as in the family of Basil the
Macedonian (867-86). The founder of the house, a handsome
hostler of Armenian extraction, from the vicinity of Adrianople,
attracted the notice of a high official by his powerful build
and his athletic strength and later gained the favour of the
dissolute emperor Michael III, the last of the Phrygian
emperors. Basil was also a favourite with women. His relations
with the elderly Danielis of Patras, whom he had met whilst in
the retinue of his master, were most scandalous. The gifts of
this extremely wealthy woman laid the foundations of Basil's
fortune. The depth of his baseness, however, is best seen in his
marriage to the emperor's mistress, Eutocia Ingerina. Michael
III stipulated that Eutocia should remain his mistress, so that
it is impossible to say who was the father of Leo VI, the Wise
(886-912). His physical frailty and taste for learned pursuits
during his reign the Code of the Basilica was prepared in sixty
books -- as also the mutual aversion between Basil and Leo are
no evidence for the paternity of the Macedonian. If this view be
correct Basil's line was soon extinct; as his real son,
Alexander, reigned only one year (912-13). Constantine VII,
Porphyrogenitus (913-59), the long wished-for heir, by the
fourth marriage of Leo the Wise, inherited the learned tastes of
his father, but was not completely deficient in energy. It is
true he left the government at first to his father-in-law,
Romanus I, Lacapenus (919-44), and later to his wife Helena,
still, when Romanus had become too overbearing, Constantine VII
showed himself possessed of enough initiative to enlist the aid
of Stephen and Constantine, sons of Romanus, in overthrowing the
power of their father, and, later, to set aside his
brothers-in-law (945). In Romanus II (959-63) the dissolute
nature of his great-grandfather Michael III reappeared. His
reign, fortunately, lasted only a few years, and then Theophano,
his widow, the daughter of an innkeeper, took into her hands the
reins of government, for her minor sons. Circumstances compelled
her marriage with Knifers II, Phocas (963-69), an old and
fanatically religious warrior. He is the first of that series of
great military leaders who occupied the Byzantine throne, and
who soon raised the empire to undreamed of heights of power. As
in the dynasty of Heraclius three of these reigned in succession
Nicephorus II, John Zimisces, and Basil II. John I, Zimisces
(969-76), was the nephew of Nicephorus, but very unlike him. The
younger man was as joyous and life-loving in disposition as the
older was grim and unlovable. Theophano, therefore, did not
hesitate to introduce into the palace the murderer of her morose
husband. But like Sophia, niece of the great Theodora, she saw
her hopes dashed to the ground. The new emperor confined her in
a convent and, to legitimize his power married Theodora, sister
of Basil and Constantine, the two young emperors. Like his
uncle, John Zimisces was only coregent but he showed great force
in his administration of affairs. At his death the elder of the
young emperors was competent to take charge of the State.
Luckily, Basil II (976-1025) proved as capable a military leader
as his two predecessors. It was under his brother, Constantine
VIII (1026-28), that the reaction set in. In opposition to the
great imperial generals who had brought the empire to an unhoped
for pinnacle of power, a civilian party had grown up which had
for its aim the curtailment of military power. This party was
successful during the reigns of Constantine and his successors
Constantine VIII left two daughters, Zoe and Theodora. Zoe
(1028-50) was forty-eight years of age at the death of her
father, but even after that married three times, and by her
amours and her jealousy brought many trials upon her younger
sister. Zoe's three husbands Romanus III, Argyrus (1028-34),
Michael IV (1034-41), and Constantine IX, Monomachus (1042-54)
all came from the higher bureaucratic circles Thus the civil
party had gained its end. This explains why neither Zoe nor the
nephew of her second husband, whom she had adopted, and who
proved so ungrateful, Michael V (1041-42 -- termed the Caulker
because his father was a naval engineer) could uphold the glory
attained by the State during the times of the great military
emperors. Even generals as great as Georgius Maniaces and Harold
Hardrada -- the latter, chief of the North-German (Varangian)
bodyguard which was coming more and more into prominence -- were
powerless to stem the tide of the decline. The general
discontent was most manifest when Theodora, on the death of her
sister and her last surviving brother-in-law, assumed the reins
of power, and not unsuccessfully (1054-56). On her deathbed she
transferred the purple to the aged senator Michael VI,
Stratioticus (1056-57. This was the signal for the military
power to protest. The holders of great landed estates in Asia
Minor gave the power instead to one of their own faction. Isaac
I, Comnenus, inaugurates a new era.
During the period of its greatest power, i.e. under the military
emperors, the Byzantine State was able to expand equally in all
directions. It had its share of reverses, it is true. The most
important was the final loss of Sicily to the Saracens in 878
Syracuse fell, and in 902 Tauromenium (Taormina), the last
Byzantine stronghold on the island, was taken by the Arabs. Two
years later Thessalonica was subjected to an appalling pillage.
As compensation for the loss of Sicily, however, the Byzantines
had Lower Italy, where, since the conquest of Bari (875) the
Lombard thema had been established. This led to the renewal of
relations with the Western powers, especially with the recently
founded Saxon line. The Byzantines were still able to hold their
own with these, as formerly with the Carlovingians. Conspicuous
the success of the campaigns against the Arabs in the East: the
fall of the Caliphate of Bagdad rendered it possible to push
forward the frontier towards Syria, Melitene (928), Nisibis
(942-43) Tarsus and Cyprus (965), and Antioch (968-69) were
captured in turn. About the same time (961) Crete was wrested
back from the Arabs. These were the battlefields on which the
great generals of the empire, chiefly Armenian, Paphlagonian,
and Cappadocian by race, won distinction. Under Romanus I it was
the great Armenian Kurkuas, and later the Cappadocian Nicephorus
Phocas who achieved these victories. Nicephorus, as husband of
Theophano ascended the throne, and as emperor he achieved his
victorious campaign against the Arabs. His assassination brought
to the throne his nephew John Zimisces, an Armenian, and
fortunately a warrior as great as his uncle.
John made preparations for the subjugation of the Bulgarians. It
will be recalled how Tsar Boris introduced Christianity into
Bulgaria and, even at that period, thought, by ingratiating
himself with Rome, to escape from Byzantine influence Tsar
Symeon (893-927) devised another way of attaining independence.
He raised his archbishop to the rank of patriarch, thereby
proclaiming the ecclesiastical autonomy of Bulgaria. His
ultimate aim became evident when he assumed the title of Tsar of
the Bulgarians and Autocrat of the Romans. This dream, however,
was not to be realized. Though Symeon had extended the
boundaries of his dominions as far as the Adriatic Sea, though
he held Adrianople for a time, and in 917 inflicted a crushing
defeat on the Greeks, still, under his successor Peter (927-69),
Macedonia and Illyria shook off the Bulgarian yoke and
established a West Bulgarian State under the usurper Shishman
and his successors. Even under these trying circumstances the
policy of Byzantium was skillful: it recognized the Bulgarian
patriarchate -- thus widening the breach with Rome -- but on the
other hand lost no time in inciting the neighbouring peoples,
the Magyars, Petchenegs, Cumani, and Croatians, against the
Bulgarians. The Russians, also, who in 941 threatened
Constantinople for the second and last time, were stirred up
against the Bulgarians. But soon it was recognized that the
devil had been expelled with the help of Beelzebub. The grand
Duke Svjatoslav of Kiev settled south of the Danube, and in 969
seized the old Bulgarian capital of Preslav for his residence.
The Emperor John Zimisces now interfered. In 971 he captured
Preslav and Silistria, but did not reestablish the Bulgarian
State. Tsar Boris II was taken to Constantinople and received as
compensation the title of Magister; the Bulgarian patriarchate
was suppressed. There now remained only the West Bulgarian State
under Shishman.
The work begun by John Zimisces was completed by Basil II,
"Slayer of Bulgarians". In three great campaigns the Bulgarians
were subjugated with monstrous cruelty. The work, however, was
accomplished. When, in 1014, the emperor celebrated his victory
with imposing ceremonies in the church of Panagia at Athens (the
old Parthenon), the Greek Empire stood on a height it was never
again to reach. Basil II was succeeded by his brother
Constantine VIII, who never distinguished himself, and by the
daughters of the latter, Zoe and Theodora. The government passed
from the hands of the military party into those of high civilian
officials, and soon defeat followed on defeat. Under heroes like
Georgius Maniaces, and Harold Hardrada, it is true, headway was
made against the most various foes. But after 1021 Armenia,
which had reached a high state of prosperity under the rule of
the Bagratides, and had been annexed to Byzantine territory by
Basil II and Constantine IX, gradually passed under the sway of
the Seljuk Turks, and after 1041 Lower Italy was conquered by
the Normans. This is the first appearance of the two foes who
were slowly but surely to bring about the destruction of the
empire, and the worst feature of their case was that the Greeks
themselves prepared the way for their future destroyers. As
formerly Blessed Theodora and her successors had persecuted the
heterodox Paulicians, who were the brave protectors of the
frontier of Asia Minor, and whom John Zimisces later established
near Philippopolis, so now the Greek clergy were treating the
Bulgarians and Armenians most harshly. The Western Church also
at times wounded national feelings and sometimes provoked the
hostility of individual nations by financial exactions. It would
be difficult, however, to point out in the history of Rome such
complete disregard of the obligations of the universal Church as
was shown by the Patriarchs of Constantinople. It is not a
matter for surprise, then, that the oppressed nations became
more and more alienated from Byzantium and finally welcomed
hostile invasions as a sort of relief, though of course
ultimately they found out their error. This turned out to be the
ease not only in Bulgaria, but also in North Syria, Armenia, and
the eastern part of Asia Minor which contained a large Armenian
population.
There was another circumstance that caused the Seljuk Turks to
appear as liberators. In the course of the preceding centuries,
a body of provincial nobility had been in process of formation
in all parts of the empire. In Asia Minor -- for conditions were
not the same in all parts of the empire -- this nobility
acquired its predominance from its large landed possessions. And
this, indeed, is reason for believing that no monetary system of
economies existed in the older Byzantine Empire, and that the
power of capitalism did not originate on its soil. Rich families
invested their wealth in landed possessions, and the poorer
population had to make way for them. This decline of the
peasantry was a grave menace to the empire, the military
strength of which declined with the decline of popular
independence. Moreover, this monopolization of the land tended
to undermine a miltary institution -- that of feudal tenures. It
is not known when this institution originated, possibly it was
an inheritance from the Roman Empire, developed afresh, during
the struggles with the Arabs in the form of cavalry fiefs on the
frontiers of Asia Minor and Syria, and as naval fiefs in the
Cibyrrhaeot thema. But in any case, the danger to this
institution was recognized at court, and attempts were made to
meet it. Romanus I, Lacapenus, descended from an Armenian family
of archons, seems to have been the first to devise legislation
against the further extension of the landed interests Other
measures date from Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus, Romanus II,
and Nicephorus II, Phocas. Nicephorus II, also, was descended
from a Cappadocian family of great landed proprietors, but this
did not prevent him from vigorously continuing the policy of
Romanus I. His stern piety -- for the old warrior, after the
death of his wife and his only son always wore a hair shirt,
never ate meat, and slept on the bare floor -- did not prevent
his opposing the further extension of ecclesiastical property.
For ecclesiastical, particularly monastic, holdings had
gradually begun to absorb the estates of smaller land-holders.
These measures against the Church were one of the causes of the
fall of old Nicephorus and of the elevation of light-hearted
young John Zimisces to the throne. Still, even under John
Zimisces and Basil II, the struggle of the great landed
interests continued. It was only the reaction after the death of
Basil that gave the aristocratic party the final victory. It
gained strength under the regime of the civilian emperors.
Ultimately this party was strong enough to decide the succession
to the imperial crown.
5. Period of Centrifugal Tendencies (1057-1203)
The powerful body of landed proprietors were of advantage to the
empire in one particular. Since the decline of the old military
organization they upheld the military prestige of the empire.
This was all the more significant because, unfortunately, since
the revival of learning an antagonism had arisen between the
civil officials, who had studied in the schools of the
rhetoricians, and the officers of the imperial army. We have
already noted that during the last years of the so-called
Macedonian dynasty, under the empresses Zoe and Theodora, the
influence of the civil-service party was all-powerful. For that
very reason a council of the landed proprietors of Asia Minor
raised Isaac Comnenus (1057-59), much against his will, to the
throne. Isaac regarded the crown as a burden. Weary of strife
with the senatorial aristocracy, he soon gave up the sceptre and
retired to the monastery of Studium. He considered himself
defeated and accordingly designated as his successor not his
capable brother John, and his sons, but an official high in the
civil service, Constantine X, Ducas (1059-67), a man who during
Isaac's brief reign had greatly assisted the emperor, who was
wholly unversed in affairs of administration. This meant a fresh
victory for the civil bureaucracy, who signalized their
accession to power by setting aside army interests, and even the
most pressing requirements for the defense of the empire. This
naturally led to a severe retribution, and as a consequence
popular sympathy reverted to the military party. At the death of
Constantine, the widowed Empress Eutocia took a step decisive
for the fate of the empire by recognizing the need and choosing
as her husband Romanus IV, Diogenes (1067-71), an able officer
and one of the heroic figures of Byzantine history. Romanus was
pursued by misfortune, and after four years the government again
fell into the hands of the civil party. Michael VII, Parapinaces
(1071-78), the pupil of Psellus, was raised to the throne. Soon
the crisis became so serious that another military emperor was
placed on the throne Nicephorus III, Botaniates (1078-81). The
old man however, was unable to bring order out of the universal
chaos. The Comneni were recalled. Alexius I, Comnenus
(1081-1118), who had been excluded from the succession by his
uncle, took the reins of government and founded the last of the
great dynasties, which was to give the empire three more
brilliant rulers, Alexius I, John II, and Manuel.
The splendour of the Comneni was the splendour of the setting
sun. It was a period of restoration. Men hoped again to raise
literature to the standard of the classic authors and to revive
the ancient language and thus they hoped to restore the glory of
the Roman Empire. Only too often it was merely a jugglery with
high sounding words. Never were the titles of state officials
more imposing than during the period of the Comenni; and never,
on the other hand, was the empire in a more precarious position,
despite all its outward splendour. The old Byzantine army was
demoralized, foreign mercenaries had replaced the native troops.
Saddest of all was the decay of the fleet. Things had come to
such a pass that no shame was felt at being dependent on the
allied Italian seaports. Still, not a little was achieved.
Clever diplomacy replaced actual power, and Succeeded in
preserving for some time the semblance of Byzantine Supremacy.
Moreover, the Greeks seem to have learned the art of husbanding
their resources better than they had, and this was due largely
to the co-operation of the Western nations. We know for a
certainty that during the time of the Comneni ground-rents were
levied in coin. This income was increased by the heavy receipts
from custom duties. In a word, the economic administration of
both Public and private business was admirable during this
period. It was most unfortunate that this splendour should be
darkened by the deep shadows of official corruption the
depreciation of currency and a total disregard of the Byzantine
national, or rather civic, conscience.
Abroad, the Byzantine State was menaced, as of old, on three
sides: on the East by the Seljuk Turks, who had supplanted the
Arabs; on the West by the Normans, who had sodded the Arabs in
that quarter; on the North by the Slavs, Bulgarians, and
Finnic-Ugrian (Magyars, Petchenegs, and Cumani). All three
perils were bravely met, though at the cost of heavy losses. In
1064 the Seljuk Turk Alp-Arslan destroyed Ani, the centre of
Armenian civilization whereupon many Armenians emigrated to
Little Armenia in the Cilician Taurus. In 1071 the brave Romanus
IV was made a prisoner by the Seljuks near Mantzikert. Having
been released by the chivalrous Alp-Arslan, he was put to death
in the most barbarous manner in his own country, during the
frightful revolution which placed Michael VII on the throne. In
the same year (1071) Bari was lost to the Normans, and in 1085
Antioch was captured by the Turks. This period also marked the
beginning of the Norman raids on the Balkan Peninsula. Between
1081 and 1085 Albania and Thessaly were threatened by Robert
Guiscard and his son Bohemund, who were twice defeated in naval
encounters by the Byzantines in league with the Venetians. On
land, however, they proved their superiority in several places,
until the death of the elder Guiscard put an end to their
projects and gave the Byzantine State half-a-century of peace in
that direction. After that period, however, the raids were
renewed. In 1147 Thebes and Corinth were taken by King Roger, on
which occasion many silk-weavers were deported to Sicily. In
1185, at the command of King William II of Sicily Thessalonica
was reduced to ashes. To the north, the outlook was no brighter.
The Byzantine State was successful it is true, in keeping the
Serbs in nominal subjection, and in entering into diplomatic and
family relations with the royal family of Hungary, but the
Bulgarians finally broke loose from Byzantine control. In 1186
they established their new kingdom at Tirnovo, with an
autocephalous archbishopric Soon after this they began once more
to push farther to the west and thus laid the foundation of
their present ethnographic homes in Thrace and Macedonia.
These heavy reverses, however, were counterbalanced by successes
at the same time it was of great moment that this period marked
the beginning of that great movement of the West towards the
East the Crusades. The Byzantine Empire derived great advantage
from this, and in some respects fully realized the fact. Even
the First Crusade brought about two important results: the
victory of the crusaders at Dorylaeum (1097) brought the western
part of Asia Minor directly under Byzantine control, and Antioch
indirectly, through the oath of fealty exacted of Bohemund
(1108); the Second Crusade, during which the Emperor Manuel
allied himself with the Emperor Conrad III (1149), neutralized
the power of the Italian Normans. Manuel now conceived
far-reaching plans. He avenged King Roger's incursion into
central Greece (1147) by the recapture of Corfu (1149) and the
occupation of Ancona (1151), in this way becoming a factor in
Italo-German complications. He actually dreamed, as Justinian
and Constans II had, of reestablishing the Roman Empire of the
West. These ambitious demands found no favour with the popes,
with whom since the quarrel about the Norman possessions in
South Italy, under the Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1054), a
final rupture had taken place. Thus the undertaking resulted in
failure. Great offence had been given to the emperor Frederick
Barbarossa, which became manifest when he allied himself with
the Seljuk Turks and the Sultan of Egypt.
Byzantium also reaped great advantage from the establishment of
the principalities of the crusaders in Syria. The invasion of
the East by the crusaders also brought new dangers, which grew
constantly more menacing. Even before this the constant and
manifold intercourse between the empire and the Italian maritime
states as well as the settlement of the Amalfians, Pisans,
Genoese and Venetians in Byzantine cities, had involved many
inconveniences. It is true that the victory over the Normans in
the campaign of 1081-85 was gained with the aid of the
Venetians, but by 1126 war was in progress with Venice. The
commercial republics of Italy grew constantly more arrogant,
demanding trading privileges as payment for aid rendered by
them, and retaliating for any slights by hostile invasions. It
was only the rivalries of the Italian cities that enabled the
Byzantines to maintain their supremacy in their own country. As
a matter of fact, the Italians had long regarded the empire
merely as their prey, and so it was inevitable that the hatred
of the Greek nation should be slowly gathering strength. Even
the spirit of the administration had long since become Western
-- the Emperor Manuel lived like a Western knight and twice
married European princesses -- when it became evident that the
pent-up hatred must soon break forth. The crisis came after the
death of Manuel, during the regency of his second wife Maria of
Antioch, and with frightful results. At the head of the movement
was a man wholly devoid of principle, but of great personal
charm and magnetism. This was Adronicus the Liberator (1183-85),
at that time about sixty-seven years of age. The movement began
(1182) with the appalling slaughter of the Latins; Andronicus
was placed on the throne (1183), and in 1184 the young Emperor
Alexius was assassinated. The Latins, however, took a terrible
vengeance. In 1185 Dyrrachium and soon afterwards Thessalonica
were captured amid frightful cruelties. These disasters reacted
on the capital. The Byzantines were no longer able to uphold
their independence, and a counter-revolution was inaugurated.
The aged Andronicus was beheaded, and the first of the Angeli,
Isaac II (1185-95, and again 1203-04), ascended the throne. We
know how the difficulties between Isaac and his elder brother
Alexius III (1195-1203) resulted in an appeal by the dethroned
emperor to his brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, and how, owing
to various circumstances the Fourth Crusade was turned against
Constantinople. The Fourth Crusade ended this period of
Byzantine history; the empire was in ruins, out of which,
however, deft hands contrived to build up a new Byzantine State,
and a feeble reproduction of the former magnificence.
6. The Decline (1203-1453)
The fact that there had been no regular order of succession made
the Byzantine throne the focus of numerous dissensions. It is
undeniable, however, that this often redounded to the advantage
of the State, inasmuch as military and palace revolutions
frequently brought the most capable men to the head of affairs
at a decisive moment. The sentiment in favour of dynastic
succession however, had been gaining ground under the so-called
Macedonian dynasty. The views of Constantine Porphyrogenitus
furnish clear evidence of this, a proof even stronger is the
touching devotion exhibited by the people towards Zoe and
Theodora, the last representatives of that dynasty. Still the
last period of Byzantine history thrice witnessed the accession
of men outside the regular line of succession. John III,
Vatatzes (1222-54), set aside his brother-in-law, Constantine,
thus becoming the immediate successor of Theodore Lascaris. A
military revolution placed Michael VIII, Palaeologus (1259-82),
at the head of the State, in place of the child John IV,
Lascaris (1258-59). John VI, Cantacuzene (1341-55), contrived to
obtain possession of the sovereign power under similar
circumstances. It may be said of John Vatatzes and Michael
Palaeologus that events alone justified the interruption of the
order of succession. But the elevation of John Cantacuzene must
be counted, like the family dissensions of the Palaeologi, as
among the most unfortunate occurrences of the empire. It is a
sorry spectacle to see Andronicus II (1282-1328) dethroned by
his grandson Andronicus III (1328-41) and immured in a
monastery, and John V (1341-76 and 1379-91) superseded first by
Cantacuzene then by his own son Andronicus IV (1376-79), and
finally by his grandson John VII (1390). It is true that the
neighbouring states, the Turkish Empire in particular, were rent
with similar dissensions. The house of the Palaeologi, moreover,
produced some capable rulers, such as Michael VIII, Manuel II
(1391-1425), Constantine XI (1448-53). Still, the contests for
the throne, at a period when the imperial glory was manifestly
on the wane, could not but be ruinous to the best interests of
the empire, and contribute mightily to its dissolution.
At first it seemed as though such capable rulers as Theodore I,
Lascaris (1204-22), John III, Vatatzes (1222-54), and Theodore
II, Lascaris (1254-58), must bring back prosperous times to the
empire. It was no small achievement, to be sure, that the Greeks
were able not only to make a brave stand against the Franks, but
to expel them again from Constantinople, a task which was all
the more difficult because at that time the Greek nation had
undergone a dismemberment from which it never recovered. The
Empire of Trebizond, under the Comneni, survived the fall of the
capital on the Bosphorus (1453) for some years. The task of
reabsorbing into the body of the empire the state, or rather the
states, of the Angeli in Thessalonica, Thessaly, and Epirus was
accomplished slowly and with difficulty. It was impossible to
drive the Franks from Byzantine soil. Split up into various
minor principalities after the fall of Thessalonica (1222) and
Constantinople (1261), they settled in the central part of
Greece and in the Peloponnesus, in Crete, Euboea, Rhodes, and
the smaller islands. Moreover, during the course of the
fourteenth century, the Serbs rose to unexpected heights of
power. During the reigns of Stephen Urosh II, Milutin
(1281-1320), and Stephen Dushan (1321-55), it seemed as though
the Serbs were about to realize the old dream of the Bulgars, of
a Byzantine Empire under Slavonian rule. This dream, however,
was shattered by the Turkish victory on the Field of Blackbirds
(1389). It was not easy for the Greeks to maintain themselves
against so many enemies for two and a half centuries, and it
often appeared as though the end had come. The Frankish Emperor
of Constantinople, Henry (1206-16), had come very near to
destroying Greek independence, and would probably have succeeded
had he not been snatched away by an early death. A second crisis
came during the minority of the Latin Emperor Baldwin II
(1228-61), when the Frankish princes were considering the
appointment of the Bulgarian Tsar John II, Asén, as guardian of
the young emperor, and regent of the empire. The plan failed of
execution only because of the stubborn opposition of the Latin
clergy, and the final choice fell on the old King of Jerusalem,
John of Brienne (1229-37). Thus the danger was temporarily
averted, and the Emperor John Vatatzes was wise enough to gain
the favour of the Bulgarian powers by prudent deference to their
wishes, as, for instance, by recognizing the Archbishop of
Tirnovo as autocephalous patriarch.
The Latin Empire became dangerous for the third and last time
when the Franks began, in the year 1236, to renew their heroic
attempts to regain their conquests. John Vatatzes, however,
succeeded in parrying the blow by forming an alliance with the
Emperor Frederick II, whose daughter Anne he espoused. Even
after the fall of the capital (1261), the fugitive Frankish
emperor became a source of danger, inasmuch as he ceded to the
Angevins his right as Lord Paramount of Achaia. As early as the
year 1259 there had been serious complications with the
principality of Achaia. At that time Michael VIII, by the
conquest of Pelagonia had succeeded in withstanding a coalition
formed by William of Villehardouin, Prince of Achaia, Michael
II, Despot of Epirus, and Manfred of Sicily. When Charles of
Anjou replaced Manfred the situation became more serious. In
1267 Charles captured Corfu and in 1272 Dyrrachium, soon
afterwards he received at Foggia John IV, Lascaris, who had been
overthrown and blinded by Michael VIII, Palaeologus. In this
crisis Palaeologus knew of no other resource than to call upon
the pope for assistance. At the Council of Lyons, his
representative Georgius Acropolites, accepted the confession of
faith containing the "Filioque", and recognized the primacy of
the pope, thus securing the political support of the papacy
against Anjou. Only the Sicilian Vespers gave him permanent
immunity from danger from this source (1282). After this the
Byzantine Empire was no longer menaced directly by the Norman
peril which had reappeared in the Angevins. The Byzantines were
gradually entering into a new relationship with the West They
assumed the role of coreligionists seeking protection. But of
course the reunion of the churches was a condition of this aid,
which, as at an earlier period, was vehemently opposed by the
people. The national party had already taken a vigorous stand
against the negotiations of the Council of Lyons, which had
found an excellent advocate in the patriarch, John Beccus. This
opposition was made manifest whenever there was any question of
union with Rome from political motives, and it explains the
attitude of the different factions in the last religious
controversy of importance that convulsed the Byzantine world:
the Hesychast movement. This movement had its inception at Athos
and involved a form of Christian mysticism which reminds us
strongly of certain Oriental prototypes. By motionless
meditation, the eyes fixed firmly on the navel (whence their
name, Omphalopsychites), the devotees pretended to attain to a
contemplation of the Divinity, and thereby absolute quietude of
soul (hesychia, whence Hesychasts). The key to this movement is
found in the needs of the time, and it was not confined to the
Greek world. Many Eastern princes of this period assumed the
"angel's garb", and sought peace behind monastery walls. The
sect, however, did not fail to encounter opposition In the
ensuing controversy, Barlaam, a monk of Calabria, constituted
himself in a special manner the adversary of Hesychasm. It is
significant that Barlaam's coming from Southern Italy, which was
in union with Rome, and his having been under the influence of
the Scholasticism of the West did not commend him to the good
graces of the people, but rather contributed to the victory of
his adversaries.
Thus the great mass of the people remained as before, thoroughly
averse to all attempts to bring about the union. The Byzantine
rulers, however, in their dire need, were obliged as a last
resource to clutch at this hope of salvation, and accordingly
had to face the deepest humiliations. When the unfortunate
Emperor John V, after hastening to the papal court at Avignon to
obtain assistance for Constantinople, was on his homeward
journey, he was detained at Venice by creditors who had
furnished the money for the journey. His son, Andronicus IV who
acted as regent at Constantinople, refused to advance the
requisite amount. At last the younger son Manuel II, then regent
of Thessalonica, collected sufficient money to redeem his father
(1370). Considering the wretched state of Byzantine affairs and
the unfriendly spirit of the people, it was certainly generous
that the West twice sent a considerable body of reinforcements
to the Byzantines. Both expeditions, unfortunately, proved
unsuccessful. In 1396 the Western Christians were defeated near
Nicopolis by the Sultan Bayazid, and it was only the vigorous
action of Marechal Boucicaut, who had been sent by the French,
that saved Constantinople from Conquest by the Turks. The final
catastrophe was temporarily averted by an almost fortuitous
event, the victory of Timur-Leng over the Turks near Angora
(1402). This storm quickly passed over; but soon Constantinople
was again on the verge of capture (1422). The Emperor John VIII
(1423-48) once more attempted to effect a union. At Florence
(1439) it was consummated, so far, at least, as the Florentine
formula of union later served as a basis for the union with the
Orthodox Ruthenians, Rumanians, and others.
Close upon the union followed another attempt to succor
Constantinople. After some preliminary victories, however,
defeat ensued near Varna, 1444. The quarrels of various
pretenders to the throne and the lack of unity among those in
power within the city precipitated the final catastrophe. On 29
May, 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople, and seven years
later (1460) the last remnant of the empire, the principalities
on the Peloponnesus. Constantine XI, the last emperor, by his
heroic death shed lustre on the last hours of the empire. Even
the Western Christian may reflect with sadness on the downfall
of this Christian empire, once so mighty. He will also trust in
the ultimate victory of the Cross over the Crescent. But where
is the strong hand capable of bringing so many nations and
religions into ecclesiastical and political unity, which is the
first requisite for cultural and industrial prosperity?
BIBLIOGRAPHY. BURY, Appendixes to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire (London, 1896-19OO), KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der
byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), GELZER, Sextus Julius
Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1898);
HIRSCH, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876); POTTHAST,
Bibliotheca historica medii oevi (Berlin, 1895-97); MARC, Plan
eines Corpus der griechischen Urkunden (Munich, 1903); FINLAY,
ed. TOZER, A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans
to the Present Time (Oxford, 1877); OMAN, The Byzantine Empire
(London, 1892);. LE BEAU, ed. SAINT-MARTIN, Histoire du
gas-Empire (Paris, 1824-36), HOPF, Gesch. Griechenlands vom
Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit in ERSCH AND GRUBER,
Encyclopadie (Leipzig, 1867-68) Sec, I Vols. LXXXV, 1XXXVI;
HERTZBERG, Gesch. Griechenlands seit dem Absterben des antiken
Lebens bis zur Gegenwart (Gotha, 1876-78) IDEM, Gesch. der
Byzantiner und des 8 osmanischen Reiches bis gegen Ende des 16.
Jahrhunderts (Belin, 1883); PAPARREGOPOULOS, Historia tou
Ellenikou ethnous (Athens, 1887-88); Historia tou Ellenikou
ethnous (Athens, 1888); GELZER, Abriss der byzantinischen
Kaisergesch. in KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzantinischen
Litteratur, 911-1067, VON SCALA Byzanz in HELMOLT, Weltgesch.
(Leipzig, 1904), V, ROTH, Gesch. des byzantinischen Reiches in
Sammlang Göschen (Leipzig, 1904); TORGA, The Byzantine Empire in
The Temple Cyclopoedic Primers (London, 1907); HESSELING, Essai
sur la civilisation byzantine (Paris, 1907); HIRSCH,
Byzantinisches Reich in Jahresberichte der
Geschichtswissenschaft (Berlin, 1878); Byzantinische Zeitschrift
(Leipsig, 1892); Vizantiiskij Vremennik (St, Petersburg, 1894);
LAMPROS ea., Nios (Athens, 1904).
ERNST GERLAND
Byzantine Literature
Byzantine Literature
To grasp correctly the essential characteristics of Byzantine
literature, it is necessary first to analyze the elements of
civilization that find expression in it, and the sources whence
they spring. If Byzantine literature is the expression of the
intellectual life of the Greek race of the Eastern Roman Empire
during the Christian Middle Ages, it is evident that there is
question here of an organism not simple but multiform; a
combination of Greek and Christian civilization on the common
foundation of the Roman political system, set in the
intellectual and ethnographic atmosphere of the Near East. In
Byzantine literature, therefore, four different cultural
elements are to be reckoned with: the Greek, the Christian, the
Roman, and the Oriental. Their reciprocal relations may be
indicated by three intersecting circles all enclosed within a
fourth and larger circle representing the Orient. Thus in each
of the three smaller circles we shall have to determine the
influence of the Orient.
The oldest of these three civilizations is the Greek. Its
centre, however, is not Athens but Alexandria; the circle
accordingly represents not the Attic but the Hellenistic
civilization. Alexandria itself, however, in the history of
civilization, is not a unit, but rather a double quantity; it is
the centre at once of Atticizing scholarship and of
Graeco-Judaic racial life. It looks towards Athens as well as
towards Jerusalem. Herein lies the germ of the intellectual
dualism which thoroughly permeates the Byzantine and partly also
the modern Greek civilization, the dualism between the culture
of scholars and that of the people. Even the literature of the
Hellenistic age suffers from this dualism; we distinguish in it
two tendencies, one rationalistic and scholarly, the other
romantic and popular. The former originated in the schools of
the Alexandrian sophists and culminated in the rhetorical
romance, its chief representatives being Lucian, Achilles
Tatius, Heliodorus, and Longus, the latter had its root in the
idyllic tendency of Theocritus, and culminated in the idyllic
novel of Callimachus, Musaeus, Quintus of Smyrna, and others.
Both tendencies persisted in Byzantium, but the first, as the
one officially recognized, retained predominance and was not
driven from the field until the fall of the empire. The first
tendency, strong as it was, received additional support from the
reactionary linguistic movement known as Atticism. Represented
at its height by rhetoricians like Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
and grammarians like Herodian and Phrynicus at Alexandria, this
tendency prevailed from the second century B.C. onward, and with
the force of an ecclesiastical dogma controlled all subsequent
Greek culture, even so that the living form of the Greek
language, even then being transformed into modern Greek, was
quite obscured and only occasionally found expression, chiefly
in private documents, though also in popular literature.
While Alexandria, as an important central and conservative
factor, was thus influential in confining, and during the
Byzantine period, directing, the literary and linguistic life of
the later Greek world, a second conservative factor is found in
the influence of the Roman culture-circle on the political and
judicial life of the Eastern Empire. Alexandria, the centre of
intellectual refinement, is balanced by Rome, the centre of
government. It is as a Roman Umpire that the Byzantine State
enters into history; its citizens are known as Romans
(Hromaioi), its capital city as New Rome. Its laws were Roman;
so were its government, its army, and its official class, and at
first also its language and its private and public life. In
short, the whole organization of the State was that of the Roman
imperial period, with its hierarchy and bureaucracy entire and
destined yet to play an important part. To these two ancient
forces, Hellenistic intellectual culture and Roman governmental
organization, are now to be added as important expressions of
the new environment, the emotional life of Christianity and the
world of Oriental imagination, the last enveloping all the other
three.
It was in Alexandria also that Graeco-Oriental Christianity had
its birth. There the Septuagint translation had been made; it
was there that that fusion of Greek philosophy and Jewish
religion took place which found in Philo its most important
representative; there flourished the mystic speculative
neo-Platonism associated with the names of Plotinus and
Porphyry. At Alexandria the great Greek ecclesiastical writers
pursued their studies with pagan rhetoricians and philosophers;
in fact several of them were born here, e.g. Origen, Athanasius,
and his opponent Arius, also Cyril and Synesius. Not indeed in
the city of Alexandria, but yet upon Egyptian soil, grew up that
ascetic concept of life which attained such great importations
as Byzantine monasticism. After Alexandria, Syria was important
as a home of Christianity, its centre being Antioch, where a
school of Christian commentators flourished under St. John
Chrysostom and where later arose the Christian universal
chronicles. In Syria, also, we find the germs of Greek
ecclesiastical poetry, while from neighbouring Palestine came
St. John of Damascus, the last of the Greek Fathers.
It is evident that Greek Christianity had of necessary a
pronounced Oriental character; Egypt and Syria are the real
birthplaces of the Graeco-Oriental church, and indeed of
Graeco-Oriental (i.e. Byzantine) civilization in general. Egypt
and Syria, with Asia Minor, became for the autochthonous Greek
civilization a sort of America, where hundreds of flourishing
cities sprang into existence, and where energies confined or
crippled in the impoverished home-land found an unlimited
opportunity to display themselves; not only did these cities
surpass in material wealth the mother country, but soon also
cultivated the highest goods of the intellect (Krumbacher).
Under such circumstances it is not strange that about
nine-tenths of all the Byzantine authors of the first eight
centuries were natives of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Asia
Minor. After this brief characterization of the various elements
of Byzantine civilization, it is to be inquired in what relation
they stood to each other, how they mingled, and what was the
product of their combination. It is extremely instructive to
notice how the two fundamental elements of Byzantinism, the
Roman and the Hellenistic, are connected, both with each other
and with the culture of the East -- what each one gains and what
it loses, and what influence it has upon the other. The Roman
supremacy in governmental life did not disappear in Byzantium.
It was even amplified, through the union of Roman Caesarism with
Oriental despotism. Moreover the subjection of the Church to the
power of the State led to that governmental ecclesiasticism
always irreconcilably opposed to the Roman Church, which had
triumphed over the secular power. On the other hand, the
intellectual superiority of the Greek element was shown by its
victory over the Latin tongue as the official language of the
Government. Its last Latin monument is the "Novellae" of
Justinian. As early as the seventh century the Greek language
made great progress, and by the eleventh the supremacy of Greek
was secure, although it was never able to absorb the numerous
other languages of the empire. Moreover, while the Greek world
might artificially preserve the classic form of its ancient
literature, the same cannot be said of the poetical feeling and
the imagination. It was precisely in aesthetic culture that the
Byzantine Greek broke completely with the ancient traditions; in
literature and in the plastic arts the spirit of the Orient was
everywhere victorious. On the one hand, some ancient literary
types e.g., lyric verse and the drama became quite extinct,
while only in the minor departments of literature was any great
degree of skill attained; on the other hand, the ancient sense
of proportion the feeling for beauty, and the creative power in
poetry were wholly lost, and were replaced by a delight in the
grotesque and the disproportioned on the one hand, and in
ornamental trifles on the other. This injury, affecting
literature and its free development, was a result of social
conditions which contrast markedly with those of ancient Athens
and ancient Rome, while they fit in perfectly with the masterful
ways of the Orient. There is no trace of a body of free and
educated citizens, which is in keeping with the Roman policy of
close centralization, and consequently slight development of
municipal life. Constantinople was the city, and no rivals were
permitted. Literature was, therefore, wholly a concern of the
high official and priestly classes; it was aristocratic or
theological, not representative of the interests of the
citizens. Thus classical standards could be imitated because
only the upper classes concerned themselves with literature. For
the same reason it lacked genuine spontaneity, having no roots
in the life of the people. The Church alone -- and here we come
to its influence on Byzantine civilization -- for some time
infused fresh life into literature. Put even this life was an
Oriental growth, for Greek hymnology is of Syrian origin. In
Byzantium therefore, ecclesiastical and Oriental influences
coincide. The Oriental influence is especially apparent in
Byzantine plastic art. Here the ancient sources of inspiration
are even more completely obscured than in the domain of
literature, and we notice the same principles: complete absence
of feeling for architectonic proportion of members, transference
of the artistic centre of gravity to the interior, i.e. to the
wall-surfaces, and there the replacing of form by colour, of the
plastic effect by the picturesque; not, however, by broadly
drawn fresco treatment but by the more artisanlike work in
mosaic, with its predominance of ornamental motives.
Wall-decoration and minor ornament are thus combined in a
fashion analogous to the Byzantine treatment of annalistic and
epigrammatic poetry. And while Byzantine art, like its poetry
goes back to the Alexandrian, yet it is greatly aItered and
modified by influences from Syria, Persia, and Asia Minor, so
that it approaches the Oriental.
The next point to be discussed is the influence of the Orient
upon Church and State. Here we must distinguish between direct
and indirect forces. Chief among the former is the office of
Emperor. In so far as the emperor unites in himself both secular
and spiritual power, there falls upon him a glamour of Oriental
theocracy; his person is regarded as sacred; he is a
representative of God, indeed the very image of God, and all
must prostrate themselves before him; everything that serves for
his use is sacred, even the red ink with which he underlines his
signature. The Oriental character of the Byzantine Church
appears in its tenacious dogmatic spirit the establishment of
Christian doctrines by councils, the asceticism which affected
monastic life so far as to hinder the formation of regular
orders with community life, and also the mad fanaticism against
the Roman West and the Church, which in the eleventh century
finally led to an open breach. The Oriental character of Church
and State is still more pronounced considered in its effect upon
civic life. The lack of a vigorous citizen-body, owing to the
lack of large cities, has already been mentioned. The landed
nobility, offcials, and priests controlled political, social,
and religious life. Hence the aristocratic, exclusive and
non-popular character of the language and literature, and the
one-sided development of both, down to the twelfth century. The
Church, too, kept in subjection by the State, though failing to
ennoble the inner religious life of the citizens, sought all the
more zealously to fashion their external life upon an
ecclesiastical model. The church edifice even served as a model
for secular building; every house had its altar, and the family
life followed ecclesiastical forms. On the other hand, we do not
find the rich and fruitful interaction between spiritual and
secular affairs that we do in western countries. The religious
devotion to Mary gave rise to no chivalric devotion to woman,
and from the oratories there came no religious drama.
Theological and dogmatic interests outweighed the religious and
ethical; the individualistic sentiment was stronger than the
social. Such, appoximately was the result of the mingling of the
diverse elements in the body of Byzantine culture. What then
were the cultural effects emanating from this complex organism?
The most momentous effect of the establishment of the Eastern
Roman Empire on European civilization was the division of the
latter into two parts: one Romance and Germanic, the other Greek
and Slavic. Ethnographically, linguistically, ecclesiastically,
and historically, both cultures are sharply distinct from each
other, as is evident from a comparison of alphabets and
calendars. The former division is the more progressive; the
latter is the more conservative, and very to adapt itself to the
West. Byzantium exerted a decided and effective influence only
in the eastern half of the empire. Russia, the Balkan countries,
and Turkey are the modern offshoots of Byzantine civilization;
the first two particularly in ecclesiastical, political, and
cultural respects (through the translation and adaptation of
sacred, historical, and popular literature); the third in
respect to civil government.
For the European West the Byzantine Empire and its culture are
significant in a twofold way Indirectly, this Empire affected
the West in forming a strong bulwark against the frequent
advances of the Asiatic races and protecting Europe for
centuries from the burdens of war. Byzantium was also the
store-house of the greatest literature of the ancients, the
Greek. During the Middle Ages, until the capture of the
Constantinople, the West was acquainted only with Roman
literature. Greek antiquity was first unlocked for it by the
treasures which fugitive Greek humanists carried to Italy.
Byzantine culture had a direct influence especially upon
Southern and Central Europe, that is to say on Italy, in church
music and church poetry though this was only in the very early
period (until the seventh century); it had a permanent and wider
influence in ecclesiastical architecture, through the
development of the so-called Romanesque style (in the tenth and
eleventh centuries), the Oriental and Byzantine origin of which
has been more clearly recognized of late. This influence was
transmitted through the Frankish and Salic emperors, primarily
Charlemagne, whose relations with Byzantium are well known.
Probably it was also in this way that Byzantine titles and
ceremonial were introduced into Central Europe, and that Central
and Eastern European official life assumed its hierarchical and
bureaucratical character. Finally, though not very numerous, the
effects of Byzantine culture upon the countries of the Near
East, expecially upon the Armenians, the Persians, and the
Arabs, must not be underestimated. Even if Byzantium received
from these nations more than it imparted, still the Byzantines
gave a strong intellectual impulse to the Orient, particularly
by enriching its scholarly literature, though even in this they
served chiefly as intermediaries.
In the following account Byzantine literature is classified in
five groups. The first three include representatives of those
kinds of literature which continued the ancient traditions:
historians (including also the chroniclers), encyclopedists, and
essayists, and writers of secular poetry. The remaining two
groups include the new literary species, ecclesiastical and
theological literature, and popular poetry.
I. HISTORIANS AND ANNALISTS
The two groups of secular prose literature show clearly the dual
character of Byzantine intellectual life in its social,
religious, and linguistic aspects. From this point of view
historical and annalistic literature supplement each other; the
former is aristocratic, the latter is secular, the latter
ecclesiastical and monastic; the former is classical, the latter
popular. The works of the historians belong to scholarly
literature, those of the annalists (or chroniclers) to the
literature of the people. The former are carefully elaborated,
the latter give only raw material, the former confine themselves
to the description of the present and the most recent past, and
thus have rather the character of contemporary records; the
latter cover the whole history of the world as known to the
Middle Ages. The former are therefore the more valuable for
political history; the latter for the history of civilization.
The following detailed account will bring to light still further
differences.
A. Historians
Classical literary tradition set the standard for Byzantine
historians in their grasp of the aims of history, the manner of
handling their subjects, and in style of composition. Their
works are thoroughly concrete and objective in character,
without passion, and even without enthusiasm. Ardent patriotism
and personal convictions are rarely evident. They are diplomatic
historians, expert in the use of historical sources and in the
polished tact called for by their social position; they are not
cIoset-scholars, ignorant of the world, but men who stood out in
public life: jurists like Procopius, Agathias, Evagrius, Michael
Attaliates, statesmen like Joannes Cinnamus, Nicetas Acominatus,
Georgius Pachymeres, Laonicus Chalcondyles; generals and
diplomats like Nicephorus Bryennius, Georgius Acropolites,
Georgius Phrantzes; and even crowned heads, like Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, Anna Comnena, John VI Cantacuzene, and others.
The Byzantine historians thus represent not only the social but
also the intellectual flower of their time, resembing in this
their Greek predecessors, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and
Polybius, who became their guides and models. In some cases a
Byzantine chooses one or another classic writer to imitate in
method and style. The majority, however, took as models several
authors, a custom which gave rise to a peculiar mosaic style,
quite characteristic of the Byzantines. This was not always due
to mere caprice, but often resulted from a real community of
feeling, effectually preventing, however, any development of an
individual style. For the continuity of historical style it
would surely have been desirable for an historian of such great
influence on posterity as Procopius to have chosen as his model
Polybius rather than Thucydides. That such was not the case,
however, is not the fault of the Byzantines but of the
"Atticists" who had checked the natural course of the
development. Nevertheless, within the limit of this development,
it is certainly no accident that military characters like
Nicephorus Bryennius (eleventh and twelfth centuries) and
Joannes Cinnamus (twelfth century) emanated Xenophon in the
precision of their diction, and that a philosophic character
like Nicephorus Gregoras (thirteenth century) took Plato as his
model. On the other hand, it is doubtless due to chance that
writers trained in theology like Leo Diaconus and Georgius
Pachymeres chose to ornament their pages with Homeric turns. On
the whole it is in the later historians that the dualism of
Byzantine civilization ecclesiastico-political matter in
classical form--becomes most apparent.
Although the Byzantine historians are thus for the most part
dependent on foreign models, and while, to outward appearances,
they form a continuous series in which each begins where his
predecessor stopped, yet they do not blend into a uniform whole,
distinguishable only under the light cast on them from classic
literature. There are, on the contrary, clearly marked groups
within which individual personalities stand out with
distinctness. Most of the historians come in either the period
embracing the sixth and seventh centuries, or that extending
from the eleventh to the fifteenth century, i.e. either during
the reigns of the East-Roman emperors or those of the Comneni
and the Palaeologi. At the time of its zenith under the
Macedonian emperors (the ninth and tenth centuries) the
Byzantine world produced great heros, but no great historians,
if we except the solitary and therfore more conspicuous, figure
of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.
The first period is dominated by Procopius, not so much because
of his personal character, as on account of his share in
historical events of universal interest and his literary
importance. As a man he was typically Byzantine, as is evident
from a comparison of two of his works, in one of which his
depreciation of the Emperor Justinian is as emphatic as his
unqualified apotheosis of him in the other. In literature, and
as a historian, however, he still has one foot on the soil of
antiquity, as is evident in the precision and lucidity of his
narrative acquired from Thucydides, and in the reliability of
his information qualities of special merit in the historian.
Significantly enough, Procopius and to a great degree his
continuator, Agathias remain the models of descriptive style,
even as late as the eleventh century. Procopius is the first
representative of the over-laden, over-ornamented Byzantine
style in literature and in this is surpassed only by
Theophylaktos Simokattes in the seventh century, while others
continued to imitate the historian of the Gothic War. In spite
of their unclassical form, however, they approach the ancients
in their freedom from ecclesiastical and dogmatic tendencies.
Between the historical writings of the first period, in form and
content half antique, and those of the second, characterized by
reverence for an artificial classicism, there is an isolated
series of works which in matter and form offer a strong contrast
to both the aforesaid groups. These are the works current under
the name of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (tenth
century), dealing respectively with the administration of the
empire, its political division, and the ceremonial of the
Byzantine Court. They treat of the internals conditions of the
empire, and the first and third are distinguished by their use
of a popular tongue. Their content also is of great value; the
first is an important source of information for the ethnological
conditions of the empire, while the last is an interesting
contribution to the history of civilization in the Byzantine
Orient.
The second group of historians present very different
characteristics. In their works a classical eclecticism veils
theological fanaticism quite foreign to the classic spirit and
an arrogant chauvinism. Revelling in classical forms the
historians of the period of the Commeni and Palaeologi were
absolutely devoid of the classical spirit; there are among them
however--and this goes far to palliate their faults--much
stronger and more sympathetic personalities than in the first
period. It seems as if, amid all the weakening of civil and
imperial power, a few great individual personalities stood out,
all the more striking because of the general decay. Indeed, the
individuality of each is so vigorous that it impairs the
objectivity of his work. This is particularly true of those
historians who belonged to an imperial family or were closely
related to one. Most of these writers produced partian works.
Such are the "Alexiad", the pedantic work of the Princess Anna
Comnena (a glorification of her father Alexius, and of the
reorganization of the empire set afoot by him), the historical
work of her husband, Nicephorus Bryennius (eleventh and twelfth
centuries; a description of the internal conflicts that
accompanied the rise of the Commeni, done in the form of a
family chronicle), and lastly the self-complacent narrative of
his own achievements by one of the Palaeologi, John VI
Cantacuzene (fourteenth century). The historical writers of this
period exhibit also very striking antitheses both personal and
objective. Beside Cinnamus, who honestly hinted everything
Western, stand the broad-minded Nicetas Acominatus (twelfth
century) and the conciliatory but dignified Georgius Acropolites
(thirteenth century); beside the theological polemist,
Pachymeres (thirteenth century), stands the man of the world,
Nicephorus Gregoras (fourteenth century), well versed in
philosophy and the classics. While these and other similar
writers are less objective than is desirable in their
presentation of internal Byzantine history, they are all the
more trustworthy in their accounts of external events, being
especially important sources for the first appearance of the
Slavs and Turks on the borders of the Empire.
B. Chroniclers
Unlike the historical works, Byzantine chronicles were intended
for the general public; hence the difference in their origin,
development and diffusion, as well as in their character, the
method in which materials are handled, and their style of
composition. The beginnings of the Byzantine chronicle have not
yet been satisfactorily traced. That they are not very remote
seems certain from their comparatively late appearance, as
compared with historical literature (sixth (century), and from
their total lack of contact with hellenistic (pagan) tradition.
In point of locality, also, the chronicle literature is
originally foreign to Greek civilization, its first important
product having been composed in Syria, by all uneducated Syrian.
Its presumable prototype, moreover, the "Chronography" of Hextus
Julius Africanus, points to an Oriental Christian source.
Accordingly, the origins and development of the chronicle
literature are combined to a much narrower circle; it has no
connection with persons of distinction and is not in touch with
the great world; its models are bound almost exclusively within
its own narrow sphere. The high-water mark of the Byzantine
chronicle was reached in the ninth century, precisely at a time
when there is a gap in historical literature. Afterwards it
falls off rather abruptly; the lesser chroniclers, met with as
late as the twelfth century, draws partly from contemporary and
partly, though at rare intervals, from the earlier historians.
In the Palaeologi period there are, significantly enough, no
chroniclers of any note.
The importance of Byzantine chronicles lies not in their
historical and literary value, but in their relation to
civilization. They are not only an important source for the
history of Byzantine civilization, but themselves contributed to
the spread of that civilization. The most important chronicles,
through numerous redactions and translations, passed over to
Slavic and Oriental peoples and in this way became one of their
earliest sources of civilization. Their influence was chiefly
due to their popular tone and bias. They depict only what lies
within the popular world of consciousness, events wonderful and
dreadful painted in glaring colours, and interpreted in a
Christian sense. The method of handling materials is extremely
primitive. Beneath each section of a chronicle lies some older
source usually but slightly modified, so that the whole story
resembles a crude collection of material rather than ingenious
mosaic like the narratives of the historians. The diction
corresponds with the low level of education in both author and
reader, and is naturally that of the popular tongue in its
original purity, therefore these chronicles are a rich
treasure-house for the comparative study of languages.
Representative Byzantine chronicles, typical also of the
different stages in the development of the chronicle, are the
three of Joannes Malalas, Theophanes Confessor, and Joannes
Zonaras respectively. The first is the earliest Christian
Byzantine monastic chronicle, and was composed in the Antioch in
the sixth century by a hellenized Syrian (consequently
Monophysite) theologian. Originally a chronicle of the city, it
was later expanded into a world-chronicle. It is a popular
historical work, full of the gravest historical and
chronological errors, and the first monument of a purely popular
hellenistic civilization. It is the chief source for most of the
later chroniclers, as well as for a few church historians; it is
also the earliest popular history, which was translated into
Old-Bulgarian, about the end of the ninth or the beginning of
the tenth century. Superior in substance and form, and more
properly historical, is the Chronicle of Theophanes, a monk of
Asia Minor, written in the ninth century, and in its turn a
model for later chronicles. It contains much valuable
information from lost sources, and its importance for the
Western world is due to the fact that by the end of the ninth
century it had to be translated into Latin. A third guide-post
in the history of Byzantine chronicles is the twelfth-century
Universal Chronicle of Zonaras. There is already apparent in it
something of the atmosphere of the renaissance that occurred
under the Comneni; not only is the narrative better than that of
Theophanes, but in it many passages from ancient writers are
worked into the text. It is not to be wondered at therefore,
that this chronicle was translated not only into Slavic and
Latin, but also, in the sixteenth century, into Italian and
French.
II. ENCYCLOPEDISTS AND ESSAYISTS
The spirit of antiquarian scholarship awoke in Byzantium earlier
than in the West, though it proved less productive. It is
extremely significant, however, that the study of antiquity at
Byzantium was begun not by Iaymen, but lay theologians. For this
reason it always had a certain scholastic flavour; the Byzantine
humanistic spirit savoured alike of antiquity and the Middle
Ages; neither ever really gained the upper hand. A pronounced
interest in the literature of Greek antiquity was first
manifested at Constantinople in the second half of the ninth
century. It was primarily directed to the systematic collection
and sifting of manuscripts. With the twelfth century begins the
period of original productions in imitation of antique models, a
revival of the Alexandrian essay and rhetorical literature, a
number of writers showing vigorous originality. Quite isolated
between the two periods stands Michael Psellus, a universal
genius of the eleventh century who bridges over the periods.
While the humanism of the ninth and tenth centuries retained
throughout a strong theological colouring and maintained a
hostile attitude towards the West, that of the twelfth to the
fourteenth century developed several writers who consciously or
unconsciously sought to break away from orthodox classicism, and
to attain a true humanism, and so became the earliest
forerunners of the Italian Renaissance. The new spirit first
found expression in an academy founded for classical studies at
Constantinople in 863. About the same time the broadly trained
and energetic Photius, patriarch of the city and the greatest
stateman of the Greek Church (820-897), exhibited much
enthusiasm in the collection of forgotten manuscripts and an
intuitive genius for the revival of forgotten works of antiquity
and the discovery of works hitherto unknown, in which his
attention, however, was chiefly directed to the prose writers, a
fact indicative of his sound practical sense. Photius made
selections or excerpts from all the works he discovered, and
were the beginning of his celebrated "Biblitheca" (Library),
which, despite its dry and schematic character, is the most
valuable literary compendium of the Middle Ages, containing, as
it does, trustworthy summaries of many ancient works that have
since been lost, together with which many good characterizations
and analyses are given, e.g. those of Lucian and Heliodorus.
Strangely enough the same Photius, who thus laid a foundation
for the renewed study of antiquity, also prepared the way for
the Greek Schism, that momentous break of the Greek world from
the West and its civilization. Even within his own Church,
however, he appears greater as an ecclesiastical statesman than
as a theologian. The encyclopedic activity in Byzantium which
had been begun by Photius was more assiduously pursued in the
tenth century, particularly in the systematic collecting of
materials, which is usually associated with the name of the
Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959). Scholars did
not confine themselves solely to collecting materials, but
formed great compilations, arranged according to subjects, on
the basis of older sources. Among them was an encyclopedia of
political science which contained extracts from the classical,
Alexandrian, and Roman Byzantine periods; it is preserved,
however, only in a few fragments. If we take account also of the
fact that in the same century originated the collection of
ancient epigrams known as the "Anthologia Palatina", as well as
the scientific dictionary which goes under the name of Suidas,
we may rightly designate the tenth century as that of the
encyclopedias.
A typical representative of the period appears in the following
century in the person of the greatest encyclopedist of Byzantine
literature, Michael Psellus. Like Bacon, he stands between the
Middle Ages and modern times. He is not, like Photius, a
theologian, but a jurist and a man of the world; his mind is not
only receptive but productive; he not only does not undervalue
the old philosophers, as does Photius, who was more concerned
with points of philosophy and grammar, but is himself of a
philosophic temperament. He was the first of his intellectual
circle to raise the philosophy of Plato above that of Aristotle
and to teach philosophy as a professor. Though surpassing
Photius in intellect and wit, he lacks that scholar's dignity
and solidity of character. A certain restless brilliancy
characterized the course of his life, as well as his literary
activity. At first a lawyer, he then became a professor of
philosophy, was for a time a monk, then a court official, and
ended his career as prime minister. He was equally adroit and
many-sided in his literary work, in this respect resembling
Leibniz. In harmony with the polished, pliant nature of the
courtier is his elegant Platonic style, as it is exhibited most
distinctly in his letters and speeches. His extensive
correspondence furnishes endless material for an understanding
of his personal and literary character. In his speeches,
especially in his funeral orations, we recognize clearly the
ennobling influence of his Attic models, that delivered on the
death of his mother shows deep sensibility. Compared with
Photius Psellus had something of a poetic temperament, as
several of his poems show, though indeed they owe their origin
more to satirical fancy or to external occasions than to deep
poetic feeling. Though Psellus exhibits more formal skill than
original, creative talent, his endowments proved most valuable
for his time, which was particularly backward in the direction
of aesthetic culture. The intellectual freedom of the great
scholars (polyhistores), ecclesiastical and secular of the
twelfth to the fourteenth century would be inconceivable without
the activity of Psellus, the first great victor over Byzantine
scholasticism who cleared the way for his successors.
In one point indeed, and that important in passing any judgment
on him, Psellus was surpassed by most of his intellectual
posterity, i.e. in character. It is true there are also among
his successors many morally corrupt and hollow natures, like
Nicephorus Blemmydes, and Hyrtakenos; the majority, however, are
admirable for their rectitude of intention and sincerity of
feeling, and their beneficently broad culture. Among these great
intellects and strong characters of the twelfth century several
theologians are especially conspicuous, e.g. Eustathius, of
Thessalonica, Michael Italicus, and Michael Acominatus; in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries several secular scholars,
like Maximus Planudes, Theodorus Metochites, and above all,
Nicephorus Geogoras. The three theologians first named are best
judged by their letters and minor occasional writings.
Eustathius seems to be the most important among them, not only
because of his learned of his learned commentary on Homer and
Pindar, but particulaly because of his own original writings.
Therein he reveals a candid character, courageously holding up
every evil to the light and intent upon its correction, not
shrinking from sharp controversy. In one of his works he attacks
the corruption of the monastic life of that day and its
intellectual stagnation; in another, one of the best of the
Byzantine polemical writings, he assails the hypocrisy and sham
holiness of his time; in a third he denounces the conceit and
arrogance of the Byzantine priests, who were ashamed of their
popular designation, "pope". For a rhetorician like Michael
Italicus, later a bishop, it is extremely significant that he
should attack the chief weakness of Byzantine literature,
external imitation; this he did on receiving a work by a
patriarch, which was simply a disorderly collection of fragments
from other writers, so poorly put together that the sources were
immediately recognizable.
Noteworthy also is the noble figure of the pupil and friend of
Eustathius, Michael Acominatus (twelfth and thirteenth
centuries) Archbishop of Athens and brother of the historian
Nicetas Acominatus. His inaugural address, delivered on the
Acropolis, compared by Gregorovius with Gregory the Great's
sermon to the Romans in St. Peter's, exhibits both profound
classical scholarship and high enthusiasm; the latter, however,
is somewhat out of place in view of the material and spiritual
wretchedness of his times. These pitiful conditions moved him to
compose an elegy, famous because unique, on the decay of Athens,
a sort of poetical and antiquarian apostrophe to fallen
greatness. Gregorovius compares this also with a Latin
counterpart, the lament of Bishop Hildebert of Tours on the
demolition of Rome by the Normans (1106). More wordy and
rhetorical are the funeral orations over his teacher, Eustathius
(1195), and over his brother Nicetas, both of them,
nevertheless, fine evidences of a noble disposition and deep
feeling. In spite of his humanism, Michael, like his brother,
remained a fanatical opponent of the Latins, whom he called
"barbarians". They had driven him into exile at Ceos, whence he
addressed many letters to his friends which are of great value
for the understanding of his character. In his style he is
strongly influenced by Eustathius; hence the ecclesiastical note
in his otherwise classical diction.
With Theodorus Metochites and Maximus Planudes we come to the
universal scholars (polyhistores) of the time of the Palaeologi.
The former gives evidence of his humanistic zeal in his frequent
use of the hexameter, the latter in his knowledge of the Latin,
both being otherwise unknown in Byzantium and acquaintance with
them foreboding a new and broader grasp of antiquity. Both men
show an unusually fine grasp of poetry, especially of the poetry
of nature. Metochites composed meditations on the beauty of the
sea; Planudes was the author of a long poetic idyll, a kind of
literature otherwise little cultivated by Byzantine scholars. On
the whole, Metochites was a thinker and poet, Planudes chiefly
all imitator and compiler. Metochites was of the more
speculative disposition, as his collection of philosophical and
historical miscellanies show. Planudes was more precise, as his
preference for mathematics proves. It is worth noting, as an
evidence of comtemporary progress in philosophy, that Metochites
openly attacks Aristotle. He also deals more frankly with
political questions, as is shown, for instance, in his
comparison of democracy, aritocracy, and monarchy. In spite of
this breadth of interest his culture rests wholly on a Greek
basis, while Planudes, by his translations from the Latin (Cato,
Ovid, Cicero, Caesar, and Boethius), vastly encharged the
Eastern intellectual horizon.
This inclination toward the West is most noticeable in
Nicephorus Gregoras, the great pupil of Metochites. His project
for a reform of the calendar alone suffices to rank him among
the modern and superior intellects of his time, as he will
surely be admitted to have been if ever his numerous and varied
works in every domain of Byzantine intellectual activity are
brought to light. His letters, especially, promise a rich
harvest. His method of exposition is based on that of Plato,
when he also imitated in his ecclesiastico-political
discussions, e.g. in his dialogue "Florentius, or Concerning
Wisdom". These disputations with his opponent, Balaam, dealt
with the question of church union, in which Gregoras stood on
the side of the Unionists. This attitude, which places him
outside the sphere of strictly Byzantine culture, brought upon
him bitter hostility and the loss of the privilege of teaching;
he had been occupied chiefly with the exact sciences, whereby he
held already earned the hatred of orthodox Byzantines.
While, therefore, the Byzantine essayists and encyclopedists
stood, externally, wholly under the influence of ancient
rhetoric and its rules and while they did not, like Bacon,
create an entirety new form of the essay, yet they embodied in
the traditional form their own characteristic knowledge, and
thereby lent it a new charm.
III. SECULAR POETRY
As the prose literature, both historical and philosophical,
followed one or more ancient models--the former Thucydides in
particular, the latter Plato--so poetry likewise had its
prototypes; each of its principal classes had, so to speak, an
ancient progenitor to whom it traced back its origins. Unlike
the prose literature, however, these new kinds of poetical
Byzantine literature and their models are not to be traced back
to the classical Attic period. The Byzantines write neither
Iyrics nor dramas and imitate neither Pindar nor Sophocles. They
irritate the literature of the post-classic or Alexandrian
period, and write romances, panegyrics, epigrams, satires, and
didactic and hortatory poetry. The chief Alexandrian
representative or these species of literature are the models for
the Byzantines, in particular Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius,
Asclepiades and Posidippus, Lucian and Longus. For didactic
poetry it is necessary to go back to an earlier prototype, a
work ascribed to Isocrates, by whom, however, it was not
actually written. The poetic temperament of the Byzantines is
thus akin to that of the Alexandrian, not of the Attic, writers.
This statement is of great importance for the understanding of
the poetry of Byzantium. Only one new poetic type was evolved
independently by the Byzantines -- the begging-poem. The five
ancient types and the the new one just mentioned are not
contemporaneous in the Byzantine period, the epigram and the
panegyric developed first (in the sixth and seventh centuries),
and then only, at long intervals, the others, i.e. satire,
didactic and begging poetry, finally the romance. All of these
appear side by side only after the twelfth century, that is to
say in the period of decay, they themselves marking a decadence
in literature.
The epigram was the artistic form of later antiquity which best
suited the Byzantine taste for the ornamental and for
intellectual ingenuity. It corresponded exactly to the concept
of the minor arts, which in the Byzantine period attained such
high development. It made no lofty demands on the imagination of
the author; the chief difficulty lay rather in the technique and
the attainment of the utmost possible pregnancy of phrase. Two
groups may be distinguished among the Byzantine epigrammatists:
one pagan and humanistic in tendency, the other Christian. The
former is represented chiefly by Agathias (sixth century) and
Christophorus of Mitylene (eleventh century), the latter by the
ecclesiastics, Georgius Pisides (seventh century) and Theodort
Studites (ninth century). Between the two groups, in point of
time as well as in character, stands Joannes Geometres (tenth
century). The chief phases in the development of the Byzantine
epigram are most evident in the works of these three. Agathias,
who has already been mentioned among the historians, as an
epigrammatist, has the peculiarities of the school of the
semi-Byzantine Egyptian Nonnus (about A, D. 400). He wrote in an
affected and turgid style, in the classical form of the
hexameter; he abounds, however, in brilliant ideas, and in his
skilful imitation of the ancients, particularly in his erotic
pieces, he surpasses most of the epigrammatists of the imperial
period. Agathias also prepared a collection of epigrams, partly
his own and partly by other writers, some of which afterwards
passed into the "Anthologia palatina" and have thus been
preserved. The abbot Theodorus Studites is in every respect the
opposite of Agathias, a man of deep earnestness and simple
piety, with a fine power of observation in nature and life, full
of sentiment and warmth and simplicity of expression, his
writings are free from servile imitation of the ancients, though
he occasionally betrays the influence of Nonnus. Of his
epigrams, which touch on the most varied things and situations,
those treating of the life and personnel of his monastery offer
especial interest for the history of civilization. Joannes
Geometres is in a way a combination of the two preceding
writers. During the course of his life he filled both secular
and ecclesiastical offices; his poetry also was of a universal
character; of a deeply religious temper, he was still fully
appreciative of the greatness of the ancient Greeks. Alongside
of epigrams on ancient poets, philosophers, rhetoricians and
historians are others on famous Church Fathers, poets, and
saints. In point of poetic treatment, the epigrams on
contemporary and secular topics are superior to those on
religious and classic subjects. He is at his best when depicting
historical events and situations that have come within his own
experience, and reflect his own spiritual moods (Krumbacher).
Less agreeable than the epigrams are the official panegyrics on
emperors and their achievements, which unfortunately even the
best writers often could not escape composing. Typical of this
kind of literature are the commemorative poem of Paulus
Silentiarius on the dedication of the church of St. Sophia, and
that of Georgius Pisides on the victory of these great events,
but the glory of the prince. Unfavourable conclusions must not
the drawn, however, as to the character of these poets, when it
is borne in mind that such eulogies were composed of only by
courtiers like Psellus and Manuel Holobolos (thirteenth
century), but also by dignified and independent characters like
Eustathius and Michael Acominatus. In fact this species of
literature had become traditional, and had been handed down from
imperial Rome to Byzantium as a part of ancient rhetoric with
all the extravagance of a thoroughly decadent literature (F.
Gregorovius). it was a sort of necessary concession to
despotism; popular taste was not in general offended by it.
As previously stated, the chief kinds of poetry during the
period of the decline (eleventh to thirteenth century) were
satire and parody, didactic and hortatory poetry, the begging
-poem, erotic romance. In form this literature is characterized
by its extensive use of the popular forms of speech and verse,
the latter being the "political" verse, a trochaic verse of
fifteen syllables, still the standard verse of modern Greek
popular poetry. rhetoric with all the extravagance of a
thoroughly decadent literature (F. Gregorovius). It was a sort
of necessary concession to despotism; popular taste was not in
general offended by it. As previously stated, the chief kinds of
poetry during the period of the decline (eleventh to thirteenth
century) were satire and parody, didactic and hortatory poetry,
the begging-poem, and the erotic romance. In form this
literature is characterized by its extensive use of the popular
forms of speech and verse, the latter being the "political"
verse, a trochiac verse of fifteen syllables, still the standard
verse of modern Greek popular poetry. In content, however, all
this literature continues to bear the imprint of Byzantine
erudition. The father of Byzantine satire is Lucian. His
celebrated "Dialogues of the Dead" furnished the model for two
works, one of which the "Timarion" (twelfth century is marked by
more rude humour, the other, "Mazaris" (fifteenth century), by
keen satire. Each describes a journey to the underworld and
conversations with dead contemporaries, in the former their
defects are lashed with good-natured raillery; in the latter,
however, under the masks of dead men, living persons and
contemporary conditions, especially at the Byzantine Court, are
sharply stigmatized, thus the former is more of a literary
satire, the latter a political pamphlet, with keen personal
thursts and without literary value, but with all the greater
interest for the history of civilization; the former is in a
genuinely popular tone, the latter in vulgar and crude [Cf.
Tozer in "The Journal of Hellenic Studies" (1881), II, 233-270;
Krumbacher, op. cit., 198-211.] Two popular offshoots of the
"Timarion", the "Apokopos" and the "Piccatoros" will be
discussed later. Another group of satires takes the form of
dialogues between animals, manifestly a development from the
Christian popular book known as the "Physiologus". Such satires
describe assemblages of quadrupeds, birds, and fishes, and
recite their lampooming remarks upon the clergy, the
bureaucracy, the foreign nations in the Byzantine Empire, etc.
(Krumbacher, 385-390). Here belong also the parodies in the form
of church poems which are mentioned below, and in which the
clergy themselves took part, e.g. Bishop Nicetas of Serrae
(eleventh century). One of the worst examples of this
sacrilegious literature, which is not yet, however, fully
understood, is the "Mockery of a Beardless Man" in the
liturgical form of Mass-chants. This is one of the most obscene
products of Byzantine literature (fourteenth century).
(Krumbacher, 337.)
As the Byzantine satire had its prototype in Lucian, the
didactic poetry found its model in the dialogue "To Demonikos",
erroneously ascribed to Isocrates. The greatest example of this
type of literature in Byzantium is the "Spaneas" (twelfth
century), a hortatory poem addressed by an emperor to his
nephew, a sort "Mirror for Princes". Some few offshots from this
are found in the popular literature of Crete in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, handed down under the names of
Sachlikis and Depharanus. Here also belong the ranting
theological exhortations resembling those of the Capuchin in
Schiller's "Wallenstein". Such, for instance, are that of
Geogillas after the great plague of Rhodes (1498) and the
oracular prophecies on the end of the Byzantine empire currrent
under the name of Emperor Leo (886-911). (Krumbacher, 332, 336,
343, 352, 366.)
A late Byzantine variety of the laudatory poem is the
begging-poem, the poetical lament of hungry authors and the
parasites of the court. Its chief still more contemptible Manuel
Philes, the former of whom lived under the Comment (twelfth
century), the latter under the Palaeologi (thirteenth century).
For the history of civilization such poetical wails of distress
as Prodromus addressed to the emperor are of value because they
give interesting pictures of street and business life in the
capital. (Cf. Krumbacher, 324, 333.)
The Alexandrian erotic romance was imitated by three late
writers of the twelfth century: Eustathius Makrembolites,
Theodorus Prodromus, and Nicetas Eugenianus. E. Rhode's
criticism of the last is true of all three: "Nothing original is
found anywhere; on the contrary, Nicetas unhesitatingly steals
his flowers of speech and gallant turns from everywhere, from
the Anacreontics, from the bucolic poets, from Musaeus, from the
epigrammatists of the Anthology, even from Heliodorus and
Longus, and especially from Achilles Tatius". The tone of these
romances is characterized by a combination of sickening
affectation of style and a crude coarseness of material. (Cf.
Krumbacher, 313, 318, 319; Rohde, Der griechische Roman,
Leipzig, 1876, 522 sqq.)
The epigram was thus the only form of secular poetry which had
an independent revival in Byzantine literature, and this at the
very time when ecclesiastical poetry also reached its highest
perfection, in the sixth and seventh centuries. This age is
therefore the most flourishing period of Byzantine scholarly
poetry; its decline in the twelfth century is contemporary with
the rise of popular poetry.
IV. ECCLESIASTICAL AND THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE
While the most flourishing period of the secular literature of
Byzantium runs from the ninth to the twelfth century, as already
seen in the amount of its three principal groups, its religious
literature developed much earlier. Christianity entered the
world as a slew force, with all the vigour of youth, between
antiquity and the Byzantine Middle Ages; indeed, it first gave
to those Middle Ages their distinctive characteristic, that
theological element which permeates all Byzantine culture. From
the Eastern provinces Asia Minor and Palestine, came the first
great ecciesiastical writers of the fourth century: Athanasius
from Alexandria, Eusebius from Palestine, Cyril from Jerusalem,
Synesius from Cyrene, and above all, the three great Fathers
from Cappadocia, Basil and the two Gregories (of Nyssa and of
Nazianzus). The contribution of these districts to Eastern
Christianity was twofold: the rhetorical and speculative spirit
of Hellenistic thought as it had developed in Alexandria and in
Asia Minor, the old home of Greek culture; and the ascetic and
dogmatic spirit peculiar to the Orient. The two blended in
Byzantine Christianity into a new and peculiar unity which,
however was from the beginning strangely opposed to the
Christian ideal of the Western world, and which finally
separated from the latter. Because of the excessive emphasis it
laid on asceticism the Eastern Church lost moral influence on
practical life, and through its preferenee for the pagan ideal
of ornate discourse, traditional indeed, but in forms no longer
generally understood, that church estranged itself from the
great masses of the people. "No Greek Father of the Church" says
Krumbacher, "rose to the level of the golden sentence of
Augustine: 'Let the grammarians find fault with us, if only the
people understand us'". Thus even the ecclesiastical literature
of Byzantium, precisely at the period of its first florescence,
is Hellenistic in form and Oriental in spirit. This period falls
in the fourth century and is closely associated with the names
of the ecclesiastical writers already mentioned. Their works,
which cover the whole field of ecclesiastical prose literature
dogma, exegesis, and homiletics, became typical, even canonical,
for the whole Byzantine period, which can therefore show no
independent work in this field; on the contrary, scientific
theology fell into decay as early as the sixth century; the last
important work is the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius.
Everything later consists, if we except the controversial
writings against sectaries and the Iconoclasts, of mechanical
compilations and commentaries, in the form of the so-called
Catenae; even the "Fountain of Knowledge" of John of Damascus
(eighth century), the fundamental manual of Greek theology,
though systematically worked out by a learned and keen intellect
is merely a gigantic collection of materials. Even the homily
clings to a pseudo-classical, rhetorical foundation, and tends
more and more to mere external breadth, not to inwardness and
depth.
Only three kinds of ecclesiastical literature, which were as yet
undeveloped in the fourth century, exhibit later an independent
growth. These were the ecclesiastical poetry of the sixth
century, popular lives of the saints of the seventh, and the
mystic writings of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The
history of Greek ecclesiastical poetry proves irrefutably how
completely ancient poetry had exhausted itself in content and
form, and how insufficient were its forms to express new and
living thoughts. In ecclesiastical prose literature it was still
possible to attempt to preserve ancient forms artificially, but
even here we sometimes meet with foreign principles of literary
art, which presuppose a new sense of poetry. It has been noticed
that in several collections of early Christian correspondence it
is not the rhythmic laws of Greek rhetoricaI style which govern
the composition, but those of Semitic (Syriac) prose. This fact
would be in perfect harmony with the other relations existing
between late-Greek and Semitic culture and the hypothesis of
Cardinal Pitra, that the rhythmical poetry of the Byzantines has
its origin in the Jewish Psalms of the Septuagint, receives
therefrom a new support. As this rhythmic principle accords with
the linguistic character of the later Greek, which had no
musical, but only a stress, accent, and as it had already been
developed in Syriac poetry, we need not wonder that Romanos, the
first great ecclesiastical poet of the Greeks to adopt this
principle, was a Syrian Jew, who had become a Christian at an
early age.
About his life as little is known as about that of his
contemporary and fellow-countryman, the chronicler Malalas, who
also made a vigorous attempt to reform the language. What
Malalas is to prose, Romanos is to the Christian poetry of the
Greek Middle Ages. If he did not go so far as Malalas, yet he
strongly modified the language of poetry and released it from
the fetters of the ancient metric laws; he brought it into
harmony with the latest idea of poetical form prevailing in his
native country as well as with the character of the Greek
language. Romanos, in fact, did not remain in Syria, but soon
went to Constantinople, where he became a deacon of the church
of St. Sophia, and where he is said to have first developed his
gift for hymn-writing.
Romanos borrowed not only the form of his poems, but also their
material and many of their themes, partly from the Old and New
Testaments, partly from the (metrical) homilies of the Syrian
Father Ephrem (fourth century). He wrote hymns on the Passion of
the Lord, on the betrayal by Judas, Peter's denial, Mary before
the Cross, the Ascension, the Ten Virgins, the last Judgement,
whilst among his Old Testament themes mention may be made of the
history of Joseph and that of the three young men in the fiery
furnace. In giving poetical form to this matter he is said to
have composed about a thousand hymns, of which, however, only
eighty have come down to us, evidently because in the ninth
century the hymns of Romanos were crowded out of the Greek
Liturgy by the so-called canones, linguistically and metrically
more artistic in form. Thenceforth his hymns held their own in
only a few of the remoter monasteries. Characteristic of the
technical treatment of his material by Romanos is the great
length of his hymns, which are regularly composed of from twenty
to thirty stanzas of from twelve to twenty-one verses each, very
finely wrought and varied in metrical structure, and in
construction transparent and verse. To appreciate rightly the
great length of the hymns we must compare them, not with the
more concise Latin hymns, but with the modern oratorios. This
resemblance is emphasized by their antiphonal rendering by
alternative choirs. This also explains the dramatic character of
many hymns, with their inserted dialogues and choric songs, as
in "Peter's Denial", a little drama of human boastfulness and
weakness, and the last part of the "History of Joseph", the
"Psalm of the Apostles", and the "Birth of Jesus". Other pieces,
like the hymn on the last judgment, are purely descriptive in
character, though even in them the rhetorical and dogmatic
elements seriously impair the artistic effect.
With regard to an aesthetic judgment of Romanos, it does not
seem that the last word has been said. Some, like Bouvy and
Krumbacher, place him among the greatest hymn-wriers of all
times; others, like Cardinal Pitra, are more conservative. For a
final judgment a complete edition of the hymns is needed. Even
now, however, it is certain that Romanos is not to be placed on
the same level with the great Latin church poets like Ambrose
and Prudentius. Two faults are especially obvious: his abundant
use of rhetorical devices and his fondness for digressions into
dogmatic theology. In both respects he is essentially Byzantine.
He is fond of symbolic pictures and figures of speech,
antitheses, assonances, especially witty jeux d'esprit, which
are in strange contrast with his characteristic simplicity of
diction and construction, and by their graceless embellishments
destroy the smooth flow of his lines. Not only the form but also
the sequence of thought in his hymns is often beclouded by the
dragging in of dogmatic questions, e.g. in the celebrated
Christmas hymn the question of the miraculous birth of Jesus is
discussed no less than four times, and that too with a
comfortable amplitude which betrays the theologian and for the
time thrusts the poet cornpletely aside. The theologian is also
too evident in his allusions to the Old Testament when dealing
with New Testament incidents; Mary at the birth of Jesus
compares her destiny to that of Sarah, the Magi liken the star
which went before the Israelites in the wilderness, and so on.
The frequent citation of passages from the prophets also greatly
weakens the poetic impression as well as the effect of the
religious fervour of the poet, many passages seeming more like
unimpassioned paraphrases than like inspired poetry. In fact
Romanos does not control the abundant and highly-coloured
imagery of the earliest Greek church poets, nor their fine grasp
of nature. The reader also gathers the impression that the
height of the poet's imagination is not in proportion with the
depth of his piety; on the contrary, ther often appears in him
something naive, almost homely, as when Mary expresses her
pleasure in the Magi and calls attention to their utility for
the impending Flight into Egypt. There are passages, however, in
which devout fervour carries the imagination along with it and
elevates the poetical tone, as in the jubilant invitation to the
dance (in the Easter-song), in which thoughts of spring and of
the Resurrection are harmoniously blended:
Why thus faint-hearted?
Why veil ye your faces?
Lift up your hearts!
Christ is arisen!
Join in the dances,
And with us proclaim it:
The Lord is ascended,
Gleaming and gloried,
He who was born
Of the giver of light.
Cease then your mourning,
Rejoice in blessedness:
Springtime has come.
So bloom now, ye lilies,
Bloom and be fruitful!
Naught bringeth destruction.
Clap we our hands
And shout: Risen is He
Who helpeth the fallen ones
To rise again.
Ecclesiastical poetry, like eccelesiastico-historical
literature, did not long remain on the high level to which
Romanos had raised it. The "Hymnus Acathistus" (of unknown
authorship) of the seventh century, a sort of Te Deum in praise
of the Mother of God, is the last great monument of Greek church
poetry, comparable to the hymns of Romanos, which it has even
outlived in fame. It has had numerous imitators and as late as
the seventeenth century was translated into Latin.
As early as the seventh century the period of Andrew of Crete,
begins the rapid decline of Greek hymnology. The delicate flower
of religious sentiment was overgrown and choked by a classical
fomalism which stifled all vitality, as had happened in the case
of contemporary secular poetry. The overvaluation of technique
in details destroyed the sense of proportion in the whole. This
seems to be the only explanation for the monstrosities called
canones first found in the collection of Andrew of Crete. A
canon is a combination of a number of hymns or chants (generally
nine) of three or four strophes each. The "Great Canon" of
Andrew actually numbers 250 strophes. Such length could only
result in poverty of thought, as a "single idea is spun out into
serpentine arabesques".
Pseudo-classical artificiality found an even more advanced
representative in John of Damascus, in the opinion of the
Byzantines the foremost writer of canones, who took as a model
Gregory of Nazianzus, even reintroducing the principle of
quantity into ecclesiastical poetry. If it be true that the
sublimity of religious poetry is in this way reduced to mere
trifling, this is, strictly speaking, the case here. For in the
eleventh century, which witnessed the decline of Greek hymnology
and the revival of pagan humanlsm, are found for the first time
the parodies of church hymns afterwards so popular. Their author
was none other than Michael Psellus. Didactic poems took this
form without being regarded as blasphemous. Another evidence of
the few religious needs of the Byzantines is the absence of any
religious drama such as developed among the people of the West
during the Middle Ages. The only example the "Suffering of
Christ" (Christus Patiens), written in the eleventh or twelfth
century, and even now frequently valued too highly in
theological circles, can hardly be called a religious drama, it
is the offspring of a pagan, rather than a Christian, spirit; of
its 2,640 verses, about one-third are borrowed from ancient
dramas, chiefly from those of Euripides, and Mary, the chief
character, sometimes recites verses from the "Medea" of
Euripides, again from the "Electra" of Sophocles, or the
"Prometheus" of Aeschylus. In her action, also, Mary impresses
the reader as but feebly Christian. The composition is evidently
a poor production of a theologian trained in the classics, but
without the slightest idea of dramatic art. It is made up
chiefly of lamentations and reports of messengers. Even the most
effective scenes, those which precede the Crucifixion, are
described by messengers; almost two-thirds of the text are given
to the descent from the Cross, the lament of Mary, and the
apparition of Christ. (Cf. Van Cleef, "The Pseudo-Gregorian
Drama Christos paschon in its relation to the text of Euripides"
in "Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences", VIII,
363-378; Krumbacher, 312.)
Between ecclesiastical poetry and ecclesiastical prose stands
the theologico-didactic poem, a favourite species of ancient
Christian literature. One of its best examples is the
"Hexaemeron" of Geogius Pisides, a spirited hymn on the universe
and its marvels, i.e. all living creatures. Taken as a whole, it
is somewhat conventional; only in the description of the minor
forms of life, especially of the animals, are revealed the skill
of the epigrammatist and nature-lover's gift of affectionate
observation.
Besides sacred poetry, hagiography flourished from the sixth to
the eleventh century. This species of literature developed from
the old martyrologies, and became the favourite form of popular
literature. The most flourishing period extended from the eight
to the eleventh century, and was concerned principally with
monastic life. Unfortunately, the rhetorical language was in
violent contrast with the simple nature of the contents, so that
the chief value of this literature is historical.
More popular in style are the biographers of saints of the sixth
and seventh centuries. The oldest and most important of them is
Cyril of Scythopolis (in Palestine), whose biographies of saints
and monks are distinguished for the reliability of their facts
and dates of great interest also for their contributions to the
history of culture and of ethics, and for their genuinely
popular language are the writings of Leontius, Archbishop of
Cyprus (seventh century), especially his life of the Patriarch
John (surnamed The Merciful), Eleemosynarius of Alexandria. (Cf.
Gelzer, Kleine Schriften, Leipzig, 1907.) This life describes
for us a man who inspite of his pecuriarities honestly tried "to
realize a pure Biblical Christianity of self-sacrificing love",
and whose life brings before us in a fascinating way the the
customs and ideas of the lower classes of the people of
Alexandria. Still another popular of Byzantine origin ranks
among those that have won for themselves a place in universal
literature; it is the romance of Balaam and Joasaph, the "Song
of Songs" of Christian asceticism, illustrated by the experience
of the Indian prince Joasaph, who is led by the hermit Barlaam
to abandon the joys of life, and as a true Christian to renounce
the world. The material of the story is originally Indian,
indeed Buddhistic, for the origin of Joasaph was Buddha. The
Greek version originated in the Sabbas monastery in Palestine
about the middle of the seventh century. It did not circulate
widely until the eleventh century, when it became known to all
Western Europe through the medium of a Latin translation [Cf.
Conybeare, The Barlaam and Josaphat legend, in Folk-Iove (1896),
VII, 101 sqq.]
The ascetic conception of life was deeply imbedded in the
Byzantine characters and was strengthened by the high
development of monastic institutions. The latter in turn brought
forth an abundant ascetic literature though it sheds little if
any advance on the asceticism of the Fathers of the Church,
especially that of its great exponent, St. Basil. Less
extensively cultivated, but excelling in quality, are Byzantine
mystical writings. The true founder of Byzantine mysticism was
Maximus Confessor (seventh century), who first stripped it of
its neo-Platonic character and harmonized it with orthodox
doctrine. Later and more important representatives were Symeon
and Nicetas Stethatos in the eleventh, and Nikolaos Kavasilas in
the fourteenth century. The Byzantine mystical writers differ
from those of Western Europe chiefly in their attitude to
ecclesiastical ceremonial, to which they adhered implicitly
seeing in it not a tendency to replace the spiritual life of the
church by external pomp, but rather a profound symbol of this
life. Accordingly Symeon strictly observed the ceremonial rules
of the church, regarding them, however, only as a means to the
attainment of ethical perfection. His principal work (publised
only in Latin) is a collection of prose pieces and hymns on
communion with God. He is akin to the chief German mystics in
his tendency towards pantheism. Of Symeon's equally
distinguished pupil, Nicetas Stethatos, we need only say that he
cast off his teacher's pantheistic tendencies. The last great
mystic Kavasilas, Archbishop of Saloniki, revived the teaching
of Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite, but in the plan of his
principal work, "Life in Christ", exhibits a complete
independence of all other worlds and is without a parallel in
Byzantine asceticism.
V. POPULAR POETRY
The capture of Constantinople by the Latins in the year 1204
released popular literature from the aristocratic fetters of
official Byzantium. The emotional and imaginative life long
latent, awoke again in the Byzantine world; in response to new
influences from the Roman West the withered roots of popular
literature showed signs of new life. They needed only assiduous
care to put forth fresh shoots, being as deeply imbedded in
popular consciousness as those of literary poetry. As the latter
springs from the rationalistico-classical atmosphere of the
Hellenistic period, even so the popular poetry, or folk-song is
an outgrowth of the idyllic or romantic literature of the same
period. The artificial literature had its prototypes in Lucian,
Heliodorus, Achilles Tatius, and Nonnus; on the other hand, the
popular literature of medieval Byzantium imitated Apollonius of
Rhodes, Callimachus, Theocritus, and Musaeus. The chief
characteristic of folk-song throughout the Greek Middle Ages is
its Iyric note, which constantly finds expression in emotional
turns. In Byzantine literature, on the other hand, the
refinement of erotic poetry was due to the influence of the
love-poetry of chivalry introduced by Frankish knights in the
thirteenth century and later. These westerners also brought with
them in abundance romantic and legendary materials that the
Byzantine soon imitated and adapted. Lastly, Italian influences
led to the revival of the drama. That celebration of the
achievements of Greek heroes in popular literature was the
result of the conflicts which the Greeks sustained during the
Middle Ages with the border nations to the east of the empire.
There were, in addition, popular books relating the deeds of
ancient heroes, which had long been current, and were widespread
through the East; these revived heroic poetry, to which a deep
romantic tinge was imparted. The result was a complete upheaval
of popular ideals and a broadening of the popular horizon, both
to the East and West; the oppressive power of ancient standards
was gradually replaced by the beneficial influence of modern
ideals.
There was, consequently, a complete reconstruction of the
literary types of Byzantium. Of all the varieties of artistic
poetry there survived only the romance, though this became more
serious in its aims, and its province expanded Of metrical forms
there remained only the political (fifteen-syllable) verse. From
these simple materials there sprang forth an abundance of new
poetic types. Alongside of the narrative romance of heroism and
love there sprang up popular love lyrics, and even the
beginnings of the modern drama.
The only genuine heroic epic of the Byzantines is the "Digenis
Akritas", a popular poetic crystallization of the conflicts
between the Byzantine wardens of the marches (akritai) and the
Saracens in Eastern Asia Minor, during the tenth and eleventh
centuries. The nucleus of this epic goes back to the twelfth or
thirteenth century, its final literary form to the fifteenth.
The original poems have suffered much in the final redaction
from the mutilations of the schoolmen. An approximate idea of
the original poem may be gathered from the numerous echoes of it
extant in popular poetry. The existing versions exhibit a
blending of several cycles, quite after the manner of the
Homeric poems. Its principal subjects are love, adventures,
battles, and a patriarchal, idyllic enjoyment of life; it is a
mixture of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the majority of the
material being drawn from the latter, while the atmosphere is
Christian. With an intimate sympathy with nature are combined
genuine piety and a strong family feeling. In an artistic sense
the work can certainly not be compared with either the Greek or
the Germanic epics. It lacks their dramatic quality and the
variety of their characters. It must be compared with the Slavic
and Oriental heroic songs, among which it properly belongs.
The love-romance of the Greek Middle Ages is the result of the
fusion of the sophistical Alexandro-Byzantine romance and the
medieval French popular romance, on the basis of an Hellenistic
view of life and nature. This is proved by its three chief
creations, composed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
"Kallimachos and Chrysorrhoe", "Belthandros and Chrysantza",
"Lybistros and Rhodamne". While the first and the last of these
are yet markedly under the influence of the Byzantine romance,
both in thought and in manner of treatment, the second begins to
show the aesthetic and ethical influence of the Old-French
romance; indeed, its story often recalls the Tristan legend. The
style is clearer and more transparent, the action more dramatic,
than in the extant versions of the Digenis legend. The ethical
idea is the romantic idea of knighthood--the winning of the
loved one by valour and daring, not by blind chance as in the
Byzantine literary romances. Along with these independent
adaptations of French material, are direct translations from
"Flore et Blanchefleur", "Pierre et Maguelonne", and others,
which have passed into the domain of universal literature.
To the period of Frankish conquest belongs aIso the metrical
Chronicle of Morea (fourteenth century) It was composed by a
Frank brought up in Greece, though a foe of the Greeks, and its
literary value for the history of civilization is all the
greater. Its object was, amid the constantly progressing
hellenization of the Western conquerors, to remind them of the
spirit of their ancestors. It is Greek, therefore, only in
language; in literary form and spirit it is wholly Frankish. The
author "describes minutely the feudal customs which had been
transplanted to the soil of Greece, and this perhaps is his
chief merit; the deliberations of the High Court are given with
the greatest accuracy, and he is quite familiar with the
practice of feudal law" (J. Schmitt). As early as the fourteenth
century the Chronicle was translated into Spanish and in the
fifteenth into French and Italian.
About the same time and in the same locality the small islands
off the coast of Asia Minor, appeared the earliest collection of
neo-Greek love songs, known as the "Rhodian Love-Songs". Besides
songs of various sorts and origins, they contain a complete
romance, told in the form of a play on numbers, a youth being
obliged to compose in honour of the maiden whom he worships a
hundred verses, corresponding to the numbers one to one hundred,
before she returns his love.
Between the days of the French influence in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries and those of Italian in the sixteenth and
seventeenth, there was a short romantic and popular revival of
the ancient legendary material. It is true that for this
revival, there was neither much need nor much appreciation, and
as a consequence but few of the ancient heroes and their heroic
deeds are adequately treated. The best of these works is a
romance based on the story of Alexander the Great, a revised
version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes of the Ptolemaic period,
which is also the source of the western versions of the
Alexander romance. The "Achilleis", on the other hand, though
written in the popular verse and not without taste, is wholly
devoid of antique local colour, and is rather a romance of
French chivalry than a history of Achilles. Lastly, of two
compositions on the Trojan War, one is wholly crude and
barbarous, the other, though better, is a literal translation of
the old French poem of Benoît de Ste.-More.
To these products of the fourteenth century maybe added two of
the sixteenth, both describing a descent into the lower world,
evidently popular offshoots of the Timarion and Mazaris already
mentioned. To the former corresponds the "Apokopos", a satire of
the dead on the livings to the latter the "Piccatores", a
metrical piece decidedly lengthy but rather unpoetic, while the
former has many poetical passages (e.g. the procession of the
dead) and betrays the influence of Italian literature. In fact
Italian literature impressed its popular character on the Greek
popular poetry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as
French literature had done in the thirteenth and fourteenth. As
a rich popular poetry sprang up during the last-mentioned period
on the islands off the coast of Asia Minor, so now a similar
literature developed on the Island of Crete. Its most important
creations are the romantic epic "Erotokritos" and the dramas
"Erophile" and "The Sacrifice of Abraham", with a few minor
pictures of customs and manners. These works fall
chronologically outside the limits of Byzantine literature;
nevertheless, as a necessary complement and continuation of the
preceding period, they should be discussed here. The
"Erotokritos" is a long romantic poem of chivalry, Iyric in
characters and didactic in purpose, the work of Cornaro, a
hellenized Venetian of the sixteenth century. It abounds in
themes and ideas drawn from the folk-poetry of the time. In the
story of Erotokritos and Arethusa the poet glorifies love and
friendship, chivalric courage, constancy, and self-sacrifice.
Although foreign influences do not obtrude themselves, and the
poem, as a whole, has a national Greek flavour, it reveals the
various cultural elements, Byzantine, Romance, and Oriental,
without giving, however, the character of a composite. The
Iyrical love tragedy "Erophlle" is more of a mosaic, being a
combination of two Italian tragedies, with the addition of
lyrical intermezzos from Tasso's "Jerusalem Delivered", and
choral songs from his "Aminta". Nevertheless, the materials are
handled with independence, and more harmoniously arranged than
in the original; the father who has killed his daughter's lover
is slain not by his daughter's hand, but by the ladies of his
palace, thus giving a less offensive impression. Owing to the
lyric undertone of the works some parts of it have survived in
popular tradition until the present time. The mystery-play of
"The Sacrifice of Abraham" is a little psychological
masterpiece, apparently an independent work. The familiar and
trite Biblical incidents are reset in the patriarchal
environment of Greek family life. The poet emphasizes the mental
struggles of Sarah, the resignation of Abraham to the Divine
will, the anxious forebodings of Isaac, and the affectionate
sympathy of the servants, in other words, a psychological
analysis of the characters. The mainspring of the action is
Sarah's fore-knowledge of what is to happen, evidently the
invention of the poet to display the power of maternal love. The
diction is distinguished by high poetic beauty and by a thorough
mastery of versification. Other products of Cretan literature
are a few adaptations of Italian pastorals, a few erotic and
idyllic poems, like the so-called "Seduction Tale" (an echo of
the Rhodian Love-Songs), and the lovely, but ultra-sentimental,
pastoral idyll of the "Beautiful Shepherdess".
KARL DIETERICH
__________________________________________________________________
Fernan Caballero
Fernán Caballero
Nom de plume of Cecilia Böhl von Faber, a noted Spanish
novelist; born at Morges, a small town in Switzerland, 25
December, 1796; died at Seville, 7 April, 1877. Her father was
Nicolas Böhl von Faber, a German who had settled in Spain and
enjoyed some reputation there as an author, and her mother was a
native of Spain. She spent her early years in Germany and Italy,
and came to Spain with her parents in 1813, settling at Cadiz.
She was three times married and widowed, her first husband being
Captain Planelles, who she married when she was barely
seventeen. Having lost her husband shortly after her marriage,
she became in 1822 the wife of the Marqués de Arco Hermoso, who
died in 1835. Two years later she married Antonio Arrön de
Ayala, a lawyer, and for a time Spanish Consul in Australia.
After the death of her third husband, in 1863, she retired to
the royal palace at Seville, where she was enabled to reside
through the friendship and influence of her neighbour, the Duc
de Montpensier. Fernán Caballero, who was much better known by
her pseudonym than by her own name, was also a journalist, and
at one time was a contributor to "LA Ilustraciön Española ya
Americana". But it was as a novelist that she made her
reputation, her descriptive powers, in particular, being
compared to those of Scott and Cooper. In 1849 she published her
first novel, "La Gaviota", which appeared originally in serial
form in a newspaper. This work has been translated into several
languages, the English version appearing in 1868 under the title
of "The Sea Gull", and it has probably been more widely read by
foreigners than any Spanish book of the century. Following "La
Gaviota" there appeared from her pen many novels and short
stories in which she describes, with much charm, grace, and
exactness, the types and customs of the different classes of
Spanish society, especially in Andalusia. Under the general
title "Cuadros Sociales" were published, with others "La
Gaviota", "Clemencia", "La Familia de Albareda", and "Elía". Her
complete works were published at Madrid (1860-61) in thirteen
volumes.
VENTURA FUENTES
Raimundo Diosdado Caballero
Raimundo Diosdado Caballero
Miscellaneous writer, chiefly ecclesiastical, born at Palma, in
the island of Majorca, 19 June 1740; died at Rome, either 16
January 1830, or 28 April 1829. He entered the Society of Jesus
15 November, 1752, held the chair of literature in the Jesuit
College at Madrid for several years, and was deported with the
other Jesuits to Italy when the Society was suppressed in the
Spanish dominions. In his new home father Caballero developed a
varied literary activity. The following are the most important
of his works:
+ "De Primá typographiae hispanicae aetate specimen" (Rome,
1793);
+ "Commentariola critica, primum de discipliná arcani, secundum
de linguá evangelicá" (Rome, 1798). The author corrects in
this work what he considers to be the mistakes of Schelstrate
and Hardouin, and proves that the native tongue of Christ and
the Apostles was Syriac, not Greek, as Dominicus Diodati (d.
1801) had maintained in his "De Christo loquente exercitatio"
(Naples, 1767).
+ "Bibliothecae Scriptorum Societatis Jesu supplementa.
Supplementum primum" (Rome, 1814), "Supplementum primum"
(Rome, 1814), "Supplementum alterum" (Rome, 1816);
+ Father Caballero shows his Scriptural knowledge in his
"Tetraglotton D. Marei Evangelium, et Marcologia critica"; "El
Evangelio de S. Marcos escrito en latin, griego y hebreo, con
los tres alfabetos".
Not to mention several historical works, we may add here his
writings on American subjects: "Observaciones americanas, y
supplemento critico á la historia de México"; "Medios para
estrechar más la union entre espanoles americanos y europeos";
"Consideraciones americanas".
SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 481 sqq. (Brussels,
1891); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), III. 874.
A.J. MAAS
Juan Caballero y Ocio
Juan Caballero y Ocio
Born at Querétaro, Mexico, 4 May, 1644; died there 11 April,
1707. A priest remarkable for lavish gifts to the Church and for
charity. While still a layman he was a mayor of his native city.
After taking Holy Orders he held several high offices. He gave
large sums of money to several churches, and founded and endowed
in his native city the church and college of the Jesuits,
enlarged the Franciscan hurch, built the Dminican church and
convent, constructed the Chapel of Our Lady of Loretto, to which
he gave all his family jewels, founded the convent of Capuchin
nuns, and built a hospital or infirmary in St. Francis' convent.
He gave dowries to more than two hundred girls, and left large
sums of money for daily charities. In the city of Mexiico he
rebuilt the church of Santa Clara and contributed generously to
the construction of the churches of Sts. Philip Neri and Belen.
In Guadalajara he finished the church of St. Dominic, and for
the missions of the newly discovered California he gave
$150,000. Some years before his death he bequethed his property
for charitable purposes. He was remarkable for his humility and
piety. He refused two bishoprics which were offered to him at
different times, and the title of Adelantado (governor) of
California, which the King of Spain sent him, after his generous
donation to those missions. Every year he used to make a
spiritual retreat, drawing at the same time his last will, and
becoming the executor of his pious bequests until he renewed
them the following year. Almighty God seemed to bless his
charity, and the sums he left for charitable purposes were
wonderfully preserved and increased for a century and a half,
until the general spoliation of the Church of Mexico.
SIGUENZA Y GONGORA, Glorias de Queretaro (Mexico, 1690); OROZCO
Y BERRA, Apendice al Diccionario Universal (Mexico, 1856).
MONTES DE OCA Y OBREGÓN
Cabasa
Cabasa
A titular see of Egypt. About seven and one-half miles north of
Sais (ruins at Ssa el-Haggar) stands a little village called
Shabas-Sounkour, or Shabas as-Shoada. It has been rightly
identified with the see that figures in a Coptic-Arabian
episcopal list of the seventh century under the names
Shabas-Sanhoul and Gabaseos-tivari-Khevasen. Ptolemy (IV, v, 48)
calls it Kabasa, and says it is the capital of the fifth nomos
(Kabasites). The city is also known by its coins. It is
mentioned by Pliny (V, ix, 9), Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer,
730), and Hierocles (724,5). Parthey (ed.), "Notitia Prima",
about 840, gives it as the metropolis of Aegyptus Secunda. Two
of its bishops are known: Theopemptus, present at Ephesus in 431
and 449, and Macarius, an opponent of Dioscorus at Chalcedon in
451.
DE ROUGE, Geographie ancienne de la Basse-Egypte (Paris, 1891),
24, 152; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog. (London, 1878),
I, 462.
S. PETRIDES
Jean Cabassut
Jean Cabassut
(CABASSUTIUS.)
French theologian and priest of the Oratory, born at Aix in
1604, died there, 1685. He excelled equally in learning and
holiness of life. He entered the Oratory at the age of
twenty-one and thought devoted to his labour he was always ready
to interrupt even his most favourite study to assist the needy.
He had taught canon law at Avignon for some time, when Cardinal
Grimaldi, Archbishop of Aix, took him as companion to Rome,
where Father Cabassut remained about eighteen months. Returning
to Aix, he became a distinguished writer on questions of
ecclesiastical history, canon law, and moral theology. St.
Alphonsus considers him classical. He was a probabiliorist in
his moral solutions. The folowing of his works are worthy of
note: "Notitia Conciliorum" (Lyons, 1668). Cardinal Grimaldi
induced the writer to enlarge this work and publish it under the
title, "Notitia ecclesiastica historiarum, conciliorum et
canonum invicem collatorum", etc. (Lyons, 1680, and other dates;
Munich, 1758; Tournai, 1851, 3 vols.). Often modified and
enlarged, it was once, under the title "Cabassutius", an
authority for the history of councils. A compendium of the
"Notitia" appeared at Louvain, 1776. "Theoria et Praxis Juris
Canonici" etc. (Lyons, 1660, and other dates; Rouen, 1703;
Venice, 1757).
HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 501; PUNKES in Kirchenlex., II, 1641;
BATTEREL, Mem. pour servir a Phist. de l'Orat. (Paris, 1903),
III, 396-412.
A.J. MAAS
Miguel Cabello de Balboa
Miguel Cabello de Balboa
A secular priest, born at Archidona in Spain, dates of birth and
death unknown. In 1566 he emigrated to Peru in South America;
from here he went to Quito, Ecuador, where he began to write the
"Miscelánea Antárctica", finishing it at Lima in 1586. Nothing
else is known of him except that, in the years 1602-1603, he
wrote a letter giving valuable details concerning the regions of
Pelechuco and Apolobamba in eastern Bolivia, between the Andes
and the Beni River. In this letter he does not explicitly state
that he visited those districts, but the information imparted is
such as to imply this. The letter is taken from a book written
by Father Cabello of which nothing else is known.
The "Miscelánea Antárctica", however, is an important source.
Unfortunately, most of it remains in manuscript. Only the third
part has been published in French by Ternaux Compans. The
original was (1853) in possession of the celebrated
historiographer Don Joaquin Garcia Ycazbalceta at Mexico. A
complete copy also exists at the Lenox Branch of the New York
Public Library. It contains Indian traditional records of the
coming to South America of white men who are said to have
preached the Gospel to the aborigines; also a theory that the
Indians of Patagonia and Chile are the descendants of pirates of
Macassar. The legendary history of the Inca tribe is expounded
at length, and the origin of the Inca given in a manner somewhat
at variance with the accounts of other Spanish authors.
TERNAUX COMPANS, Histoire du Pérou (tr. of part of CABELLO'S
book) furnishes a few biographical data. More is told in the
Diccionario universal de Historia (Mexico, 1853); LEóN Y PINELO,
Epítome (1737-1738), has a short notice of the work.
On the missions to the Bolivian Andes and Apolobamba, see the
letter by CABELLO in Relaciones geográficas de Indias (Madrid,
1885), II; MENDIBURú, Diccionario etc. (Lima, 1876), II, gives
only meagre information.
AD. F. BANDELIER
Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca
Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca
Born at Jerez de la Frontera in Andalusia, Spain; dates of birth
and death uncertain.
The family were originally peasants and called themselves Alhaja
until after the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (11 July, 1212),
when they were ennobled for service that contributed to the
important victory which the kings of Castile, Aragon, and
Navarre achieved over the Moors. One of the Alhajas informed the
Christians of a mountain pass by which the position of the Arabs
could be turned, and indicated the entrance by placing the skull
of a cow near it. Hence the change of name and the coat of arms.
Alvar Nuñez joined the expedition of Pámfilo de Narvaez to
Florida in 1526 as treasurer. With two other Spaniards and an
Arab Moor, he was the only survivor who remained on the
mainland. For eight years they roamed along the coasts of
Louisiana and Texas under the greatest of hardships, their
position among the Indians being wellnigh intolerable. In utter
despair, Cabeza de Vaca at last tried his scanty knowledge of
medicine and, his cures proving successful, he became a renowned
medicine man among the natives, his companions following the
example. The treatment to which they resorted partook of the
nature of a faith-cure. He declares the sign of the cross to be
a seldom-failing remedy. The belief of the outcasts in miracles
was sincere, while acknowledging that they also employed
indigenous Indian remedies with simple Christian religious
ceremonials. After nine years they reached the Pacific coast in
Sonora, Mexico, thus being the first Europeans to travel across
the North American continent. Cabeza de Vaca arrived at the city
of Mexico in 1536. He was also the first European who saw and
described the American bison or buffalo. But the wanderers did
not, as had been supposed, see the New Mexican pueblos. They
only heard of them.
Returning to Spain in 1537, he obtained the post of Governor of
the La Plata regions (Argentina), whither he went in 1541.
Cabeza de Vaca was a trustworthy subaltern, but not fit for
independent command. His men rebelled against him in 1543, took
him prisoner, and sent him to Spain, where for eight years he
was kept in mild captivity. The date of his death is not known,
but it is stated that he ended his days at Seville, where he
occupied an honourable and modestly lucrative position in
connection with the